Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNOLOGY

Concorde Aircraft

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Technology what percentage of the cost of the research and development of the Concorde was dollar expenditure; and what was the actual figure.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Expenditure on sub-contracts with American firms accounts for about £15 million, or about 2 per cent. of the total estimate of £730 million for the extra-mural development programme.

Mr. Jenkins: While the percentage falls, does not the amount indicate the enormous level to which the costs of this aircraft have escalated since the original estimate of £150 million put forward by right hon. Gentlemans opposite? Will my right hon. Friend say whether or not the £1,000 million figure is already in sight?

Mr. Benn: I do not think that the percentage of American equipment in Concorde has been affected by the escalation, although the total cost will be. I have dealt previously in the House with the figure of £1,000 million that has been quoted. I think that people have been confusing production finance with R. and D.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Technology whether the routes for testing the sonic boom of the Concorde prototypes have yet been decided.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a further

statement about the conditions under which the Concorde prototypes will be tested for sonic boom.

Mr. Bean: Concorde's boom will be measured as one of the aircraft's characteristics during the flight test programme. The routes for flight tests at supersonic speed have not yet been decided.

Mr. Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend make quite certain that when these routes are determined, flights will take place over populated areas so that people can experience the nature of the sonic boom for themselves?

Mr. Benn: The object of the flight tests is not to test public reaction to the boom but to test the aircraft's capability with a view to providing performance guarantees for potential customers. The attitude which Governments may adopt towards over-flight by supersonic aircraft is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and not for me.

Mr. Rankin: Can we take it that Concorde will be flown at appropriate speeds over whatever areas are necessary to promote safe utilisation of the supersonic aircraft?

Mr. Benn: We are now considering what would be the right route path for this aircraft. We have to take into account the desirability, on the one hand, of minimising disturbance and, on the other hand, of providing a route path which keeps the aircraft within radar cover and other necessary services. This means that parts of straight flights for supersonic testing are bound to be over land.

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Technology what further information e has obtained of the noise level of Concorde at take-off, at landing and in subsonic flight; and how this level compares with that of four-engine jet aircraft at present in commercial service.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): We have not yet had sufficient noise measurements on the prototype aircraft to draw firm conclusions on Concorde's noise levels in operation. It remains our aim to ensure that Concorde's engine noise should be no greater than that of existing subsonic jets.

Mr. Fortescue: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Would he therefore assure the House that as a result of the flights so far undertaken there is no reason to suppose that this aim will not be achieved?

Mr. Mallalieu: On the flights so far there is no reason to suppose that.

Mr. Molloy: Can my hon. Friend say what liaison exists between his Department and the Board of Trade for contacting local authorities concerned about the increasing noise of aircraft, particularly in those areas which have large airports in their vicinity?

Mr. Mallalieu: The liaison between my Department and the Board of Trade is very close on all these matters.

Mr. Corfield: asked the Minister of Technology what discussions he is currently having with the French Government to ensure that there will be no slowing down of the Concorde programme, in view of the possibility that United States aircraft manufacturers may decide to construct a supersonic aircraft to operate at a lower mach number than hitherto contemplated, which would be available earlier than anticipated, and in more direct competition with Concorde.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Technology what consultations he has had with the French Government about the slowing down of the Concorde programme; and what has been the outcome.

Mr. Benn: I hope to meet the French Minister of Transport shortly to discuss the Concorde programme.

Mr. Corfield: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the effect of the apparent slowing down at the moment on the labour requirements and labour problems in the Rolls-Royce Bristol Engine Division and the B.A.C.?

Mr. Benn: I cannot at the moment because the production programme is the one that has to be discussed. Obviously, the slowing down of the programme due to delay in first flight has itself created a problem that was not anticipated earlier. My discussions with the French Minister are designed to look at the production programme and the phasing of it, in which one is balanc-

ing on the one hand the desirability of maintaining a steady flow of work for employment and economic reasons against the risk of investing too much in full production before one knows the ordering position which one will get.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the Paris Air Show I was able to consult various Frenchmen engaged at present in the production of Concorde and that all of them assured me that they would be dismayed by a slowing down in her rate of growth?

Mr. Benn: I think there is no doubt that anyone engaged in building Concorde wants to see the green light flashing whether on this side of the Channel or the other, but the question which M. Mondon and I have to consider is what is the right rate of production, given that there has been some slowing down of the programme.

Mr. McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any major redesign of Concorde, for instance the incorporation of small nose wings, which may slow down production?

Mr. Benn: The problem in all aircraft and advanced projects is the point at which one freezes the design and the effect of this on performance on the one hand and cost on the other. I think there is the right rate of development at the moment. I think the position as it stands between the French Minister and myself on this is clearly understood. I recently made a statement on cost aspects which have important elements in this.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Rolls-Royce Company has recently established a further team of research into the whole question of noise? Is not this an indication that we cannot rush forward in relation to this project until the whole matter of noise has been settled?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and, of course, the new high technology engines which Rolls-Royce has been producing include the RB211, which it sold to Lockheeds last year, which have a distinct noise advantage over the older types of engine. This, unfortunately, has not got an application in the supersonic field, but I agree entirely that broadly social costs and the


technological implications in trying to overcome them must be taken into account when projects are authorised.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Technology what further discussions he has had with the manufacturers of Concorde in respect of the estimated sales of this aircraft and the prices at which the aircraft and its spares and replacements will be offered to airline operators.

Mr. Benn: The prospective sales and the selling price of Concorde are regularly reviewed with the manufacturers.

Mr. Biffen: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his opinion that the ultimate sales of this aircraft will to some degree be related to the price that is charged to the airlines? When does he expect B.A.C. to be able to indicate the price it hopes to charge the operators so that we may get some idea of how many of these options will actually end up as orders?

Mr. Benn: That is what the flight testing programme is designed to find out, but it is not possible to quote a price absolutely firmly and certainly not to publicise prices curently being discussed. The market will respond in part to the price, but this may not be quite as big a feature of the ultimate market as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Dobson: Does my right hon. Friend realise that in part the price for this aircraft can be achieved if it reaches the market early enough to compete in world markets and so uphold the traditions of our aircraft industry?

Mr. Benn: There is no doubt about it that the capacity of this aircraft, as with every other aircraft, to get the market will depend in part on its being there on time. To this extent we have an advantage over the nearest competitors. This should help us, but it does not encourage us to relax our efforts.

Sir C. Osborne: What proportion of the colossal sum we have already spent on development does the Minister expect we shall recover through sales?

Mr. Benn: It greatly depends on the market for the aircraft. Therefore, I cannot say this with any certainty at this time. Until the options are converted into orders and Concorde enters into

service, and until we know when the American competitor will be coming along, we could not answer that authoritatively. But we are not expecting to get back all the money we have put into the research and development. I think this has been understood.

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Technology if he will specify the date by which a firm decision is to be taken to proceed with the financing of Concorde production; and whether this date is accepted by the French Government.

Mr. Ellis: asked the Minister of Technology if he will now allow the production of Concordes for airline service to go ahead.

Mr. Benn: Manufacture of the first three production aircraft is already under way. We are currently discussing with the firms and the French Government the programme for the subsequent aircraft.

Mr. Onslow: By what date must a decision be taken on the fourth production aircraft onwards? How are these to be financed? Is it under the Industrial Expansion Act? What rate of interest is currently being charged?

Mr. Benn: The finance that will be provided for the production will be handled under the Industrial Expansion Act, and the negotiations are proceeding. This is at the going rate. As to the date, there is no doubt that the firms involved would like to have a measure of certainty as early as they can, but the Governments, particularly the new French Government, which has just acquired responsibility for the project, want time to think about the right production programme. I am discussing it with them.

Mr. Edelman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in connection with the financing of the aircraft that one of the reasons for the escalation of cast is the multiplication of modifications? Will he ensure that the modifications are kept within reasonable limits?

Mr. Benn: It is true that when one introduces modifications one tends to increase cost, but they are normally introduced for very good reasons, principally to ensure that the published payload is achieved.

Mr. Corfield: When the right hon. Gentleman has concluded his negotiations with his opposite number in France, will he make the information available to the House?

Mr. Benn: I certainly shall. I have not fixed the date when I shall visit M. Mondon. He needs a little time to settle in. I have a direct interest in this myself, and I will ensure that the House knows.

Carbon Fibres

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Technology if he will use his powers under the Industrial Expansion Act to secure rapid development under public ownership of carbon fibre technology.

Mr. Benn: As my hon. Friend knows, discussions are already in hand on the possibility of expanding production. No proposal involving the use of public funds has arisen.

Mr. Hooley: My hon. Friend will know that the major break-through in this technology occurred in two publicly-owned and publicly-financed research institutions of international reputation. Would it not be appropriate, since in the opinion of those qualified to know this could be a very fast growth industry, that the taxpayer should now make an investment in something which could pay off handsomely?

Mr. Benn: The provisions of the various Acts, including the Industrial Expansion Act, are available if required, but the success that we shall achieve with carbon fibre depends on our finding a market for it, and applying it in areas in which, of course, a number of firms have expertise, and it would be wrong to exclude them from the exploitation of something which would be of benefit to the economy and, indeed, to the taxpayer through royalty payments.

Mr. Neave: asked the Minister of Technology what is his policy for the future of carbon fibre technology; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brian Parkyn: asked the Minister of Technology when he plans to make a statement on the Report on Carbon Fibres, House of Commons Paper No. 157.

Mr. Benn: Discussions are already in hand between I.C.I. and N.R.D.C. on the possibility of I.C.I. building a large carbon fibre plant.
I expect very shortly to reply officially to the Select Committee, outlining my policy for carbon fibre technology in the light of its report.

Mr. Neave: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's reply on the progress, may I ask what the rôle of the N.R.D.C. will be in this matter? Is he not averse to having too many middlemen in such a negotiation? Does not he appreciate the urgency of building this plant?

Mr. Benn: I would not regard the N.R.D.C. as a middleman for this purpose. It has great experience of handling licences of this kind. It was set up in 1948 to do this kind of job. I am reluctant to undertake tasks best undertaken by others with experience in the field concerned. It is better to leave it to them.

Mr. Parkyn: In view of the report that a Japanese firm is to build a carbon fibre plant with a capacity of about 150 tons a year, is my right hon. Friend aware that we are particularly delighted to know that he is going to support very fully the policy of putting up a major plant early in this country?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend knows our interest and also that the development of applications for carbon fibre plays a very large part in this matter. But, as in many other areas, this is a question not just of being in advance with the latest technology but of having a market intelligent enough to use it to its fullest opportunity.

Mr. Lubbock: What issues are to be left to the negotiations between N.R.D.C. and I.C.I.? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in accordance with the Report of the Select Committee, this is a matter of urgency? Will he guarantee to make a statement before the House rises for the recess?

Mr. Benn: I cannot guarantee to make a statement before I have one to make. Clearly, in the discussions there are many commercial considerations which the firm itself has to take into account, as does the N.R.D.C. I will keep the House informed, as it is reasonable to do.

Mr. Tinn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the existing I.C.I. industrial complex on Tees-side provides ample space for such a plant?

Mr. Benn: I will bear that in mind, along with all the many telephone calls I received on the day the Select Committee's Report came out from people who have similar ideas about other parts of the country.

Fluidics

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Technology what action is being taken by his Department to overcome the lack of development in British industry of the application of fluidics.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministery of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): The Department is seeking to encourage the greater use of fluidics in industrial applications by offering financial support for projects; by a series of conferences at Cranfield; by lectures, courses and permanent demonstrations at the low-cost automation centres; by the dissemination of technical literature; and by making films.

Mr. Hooley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What action is he taking to concentrate the number of firms which are actually involved in this work?

Dr. Bray: There are not so many firms involved for this to be a problem.

Electronics Industry

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Technology what action he plans to take to reorganise the British electronics industry in order to increase its export potential.

Dr. Bray: The export potential of the British electronics industry has been increased by the substantial reorganisations that have already taken place. As opportunity occurs for further changes, we shall continue to support proposals which will benefit the competitiveness of British products.

Mrs. Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that, compared with West German industry, our organisation militates against exports? There they have standard catalogues, in which all the firms

advertise. They have standard interfaces, which means that all their equipment is interchangeable. We do not have this. Will my hon. Friend look at this subject again, and see whether a similar pattern can be employed here?

Dr. Bray: I shall be very happy to look at the point to which my hon. Friend draws attention. We have a very far-reaching scheme in preparation with both France and Germany precisely on standards for electronic components.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does not the Minister think that if he did as his hon. Friend wishes it would have a reverse effect? Would it not be better if the Government did not interfere with this industry, since it is producing a considerable amount of exports to the benefit of the country as a whole?

Dr. Bray: I do not think that the industry regards itself as being interfered with in any way at all. It is indeed, an enthusiastic supporter of the development of wider uses of standards.

Oil Pollution

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Technology what research is being done by his Department into the problem of oil pollution of Great Britain's beaches; and what results are now available for immediate, practical application.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Gerald Fowler): Research, co-ordinated by the Warren Spring Laboratory, is in progress on removing oil from beaches, the sinking of oil at sea, the use of booms to protect estuaries, and the problems of burning oil in a wrecked tanker. Two thousand copies of the Warren Spring Laboratory's recommendations on beach cleaning have been sent to all coastal local authorities, and several demonstrations have been given.

Mrs. Short: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for that reply. I am glad to know that research establishments under his Department are contributing to the solution of this horrible problem. Can he give an assurance that the members of staff employed by his research establishments are not in any way inhibited from producing solutions of their own and have an opportunity of presenting those solutions to him?

Mr. Fowler: No such inhibitions exist.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The list which the hon. Gentleman has given is a great deal shorter than that contained in Appendix 33 to the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. Will he consider giving an up-to-date report on the progress made on the various projects listed in that Appendix?

Mr. Fowler: The rule for length of Parliamentary Answers is different from that covering appendices to Reports by Select Committees, but I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that possibly the best research to prevent pollution would be a spot of research into those responsible for it?

Mr. Fowler: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

V.T.O.L. Civil Aircraft

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Technology what is the present position of the study of the vertical take-off and landing civil aircraft at present being made by his Department.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 16th April and 21st May. Firms are working on definition studies for three types of vertical take-off aircraft. Preliminary reports are expected in the autumn.—[Vol. 781, c. 1130–1 and 1132–3; Vol. 784, c. 419 and 430–1.]

Mr. Fortescue: Since we already have a commanding lead in the techniques of v.t.o.l. on the military side, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that every urgency is being given to this side and that we are not likely to lose this lead because of procrastination in his Department?

Mr. Mallalieu: I consider this matter just as important as does the hon. Member. We are pressing on very fast, but it is a complex problem.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would it not be desirable if my hon. Friend could divert some of the money being wasted on Concorde to this project, which, as the

hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) has said, is extremely important and urgent?

Mr. Mallalieu: I would not accept that money is being wasted on Corcorde.

A300 Aircraft (British Engine)

Mr. Corfield: asked the Minister of Technology what negotiations are taking place with the A300 consortium with a view to securing continued co-operation with Hawker Siddeley and the provision of a British engine.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Hawker Siddeley Aviation is actively negotiating terms with Sud Aviation and Deutsche Airbus for continuing participation in the A300B project. Rolls-Royce has offered to supply a version of the RB211 engine.

Mr. Corfield: Is it true that the version of the RB211 offered by Rolls-Royce is the same as that offered for the Lockheed 1011 Transcontinental version offered to one of the Canadian airlines? If so, is it such an advance on the ordinary 211 that it will need launching aid?

Mr. Mallalieu: It has similar characteristics. The possibility of further launching aid would have to be considered.

Motor Industry

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Technology in view of the decline in output of motor-cars for home sales in the half-year ended 30th June, 1969, whether he will make a statement on the prospects for production and employment in the motor industry during the remainder of 1969.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Technology what is the estimated production of passenger cars for home and export markets, respectively, for the year to date; what percentage change these figures show over the corresponding period for 1968; and if he will make a statement on the expected levels of demand during the remainder of this year.

Mr. Fowler: Total production in the 22 weeks to 31st May, 1969 was 778,232, comprising 403,462 for the home market and 374,770 for export. The weekly average production rate, compared with the 21 weeks to 25th May, 1968, was


4 per cent. lower in total, the decline being largely attributable to losses caused by industrial disputes and a 12½ per cent. fall in home market production being partly offset by a 7 per cent. rise in export production. Total production in 1969 is expected to be about 5½ per cent. below the level achieved in 1968. No significant change in employment in the industry is expected in the second half of 1969.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does the Minister know that motor car production for the home market is now at the lowest level since 1962 and is running at a rate of less than 1 million vehicles for the home market per annum, notwithstanding that export sales for the first time in our history are exceeding home sales? How does he expect export price competitiveness to be maintained if he goes on denigrating the home market?

Mr. Fowler: I was not aware that I had ever denigrated anything. The hon. Member's question might just as well have been phrased, "Is the Minister aware that export production is now running at record levels?" We have at last achieved the switch of resources into exporting which many Governments have sought to achieve.

Mr. Biffen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the great advantages of the present policy dictated by the Chicago school concerning money supply is that one can do without the peripheral controls like the existing hire-purchase controls? Will he therefore recommend to his colleagues in the Treasury that as some token of concern over the decline in the home market motor car trades' sales they should scrap hire-purchase controls?

Mr. Fowler: I am in constant touch with the industry; so is my right hon. Friend. We watch the position very closely. Questions on hire-purchase controls must be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Should not the British motor industry, like its German competitors, make even greater efforts to concentrate in the export field; for, despite the argument about unit costs, concentration in the home market leads to a complacent attitude?

Mr. Fowler: I have been delighted to see the export successes of the British motor industry since November, 1967; and I congratulate the industry on these. What is notable is that in many markets the industry has now secured a sufficient volume of sales to make export sales much more profitable, because the overheads of maintenance and sales organisations in those countries are spread more widely.

Mr. David Price: I am sure that the whole House is delighted with the success of the industry in the export field, but does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agree or disagree with the opinion of the "Little Neddy" on the motor industry that a large, stable home market is an important factor in maintaining both profitability and international competitiveness?

Mr. Fowler: None of us doubts that the motor industry requires a large and stable home market, but what we would want to argue about, and where there is not complete agreement, is how large is large and what is the degree of stability required.

Multi-Rôle Combat Aircraft

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Technology if he will give details of the proposed penalties for over-estimates in the pre-production stage of the multi-rôle combat aircraft, designed to lessen the risk of attempts by one nation to gain a larger share of the contracts.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I cannot give details of the confidential arrangements made with our partners, but I can assure my hon. Friend that a country overestimating its aircraft requirements in order to gain more than its due share of work in the early stages of the project and subsequently reducing them will suffer a financial penalty.

Mr. Dalyell: In the absence of details, how can we be persuaded that this is a carefully worked out and costed contract?

Mr. Mallalieu: I think it is impossible for my hon. Friend to decide that in the absence of details. We have the details, and we are fully satisfied.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will seek the agreement of the Governments of


Germany, Italy, and Holland to ensure that the Panavia Company, comprising the British Aircraft Corporation, Messerschmitt-Boeklow, Fiat and Fokker, should restrict tenders for the engine of the proposed European multi-rôle combat aircraft to European firms.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: A competition for this engine is already under way and tenders have been invited from Rolls-Royce and the American firm Pratt and Whitney. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said on 14th May when he made his statement to the House, we believe that Rolls-Royce will win this competition on merit.—[Vol. 783, c. 1411–17.]

Mr. Dalyell: Would I be right in supposing that part of the purpose of the M.R.C.A. is to sustain a viable European aircraft industry? If by chance Rolls were not to win it, would there be any point in our continuing in the project?

Mr. Mallalieu: In that event, which I consider to be hypothetical, it certainly would not be a European aeroplane.

Mr. Lubbock: Why do not we in Europe impose a penalty on American aeroplane manufacturers who are trying to compete, in Europe, analogous to the penalties which are imposed on British manufacturers trying to compete in the United States? In other words, why do we not insist that there should be a certain percentage cost advantage before we are willing to buy an American engine?

Mr. Mallalieu: That is something for consideration, but I would much prefer to impose the penalty of greater efficiency.

Mr. Brooks: Would my hon. Friend care to ponder the implications of his statement that if the Americans were to win this contract it would no longer be a European aircraft? Surely the whole object of the exercise is to devise a system whereby the European aviation industry will remain viable?

Mr. Mallalieu: It is not the whole object. The object is to get a plane which the air forces of various countries need for the future.

Mr. Corfield: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the ordering of the avionics for this -aircraft is every bit as

important as the ordering of the engines, and that it is very important that these should be European, in which the British avionics industry has a very strong stake?

Mr. Mallalieu: This point is very much in our minds, and is being kept there by the House of Commons.

Uranium

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Technology what is the estimated demand for uranium by the nuclear power industries in this country during the next five years; what source it will come from; and at what anticipated price.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Demand for uranium for the nuclear power programme in this country over the next five years is expected to rise from some 2,000 to some 3,500 short tons uranium oxide per annum.
It will be met from stocks and from current imports from Canada and South Africa under long-term contracts.
For commercial reasons prices paid under the authority's long-term contracts are not disclosed.

Mr. Eadie: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that figures have been published which seem to indicate that there will be difficulty in meeting the demand for uranium in the future? Is he further aware that it has been suggested that there will be a fairly drastic escalation of prices?

Mr. Mallalieu: I know that a figure was published in the Canadian Parliament for special reasons, but I know of no suggestion that there is likely to be in the near future anything like a uranium shortage.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Technology what reports on geological surveys for uranium in Scotland he has received from organisations which have commissioned such surveys and which are in receipt of public funds.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The work has not yet advanced sufficiently to enable me to add anything to what I told the hon. Member on 27th November, 1968.—[Vol. 774. c. 494.]

Mr. Eadie: That is a disappointing answer. In view of the exploration going on in Scotland at present, would not such finds be an additional source of wealth to the country and help to make us more self-sufficient economically? Further, what part is the Highlands and Islands Development Board playing in advancing the search for new additional mineral wealth in Scotland?

Mr. Mallalieu: I do not think that the board is involved here. I am sorry that my hon. Friend is disappointed. The survey started only last year. It is a lengthy business, and it is a five-year programme.

Mr. Maclennan: Will my hon. Friend say something about the researches of the Institute of Geological Science in the North of Scotland, where the story is current that interesting finds of radioactive uranium have been made?

Mr. Mallalieu: That is one of the areas where the survey is being carried out, but so far we have no startling results.

Ball-bearing Industry

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation's plans for reorganisation of the United Kingdom ball-bearing industry.

Mr. Benn: A basis for a viable British-owned element in the industry has now been established. A very full statement was issued by the I.R.C. on 21st May, copies of which I have put in the Library and sent to the hon. Member.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy. As the I.R.C. has used taxpayers' money to frustrate the bid from S.K.F., ostensibly on grounds of economic nationalism, and as the Government themselves miss no opportunity to encourage a take-over of British assets by American firms, can we take it that it is the view of the Government and their minions that any efforts to create companies of European scale which might frustrate American industrial colonisation of British assets are against British interests; and, if so, which?

Mr. Benn: I think that the hon. Gentleman is putting a political question on a

subject which is extremly complicated and difficult. The Government's view of inward-investment has been explained on a number of occasions. Broadly speaking, we welcome it. It brings investment. It brings technology. It brings management. It creates bigger growth. However, as a Government and as a community we are bound to consider the effect of take-overs on the viability of important sections of British industry. We are guided in part in our attitude to this by the attitude of customers here who do not want to see important industries passing entirely out of British control. This was not activated by any hostility to S.K.F., as has been explained to S.K.F. both directly and indirectly.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Does the right hon. Gentleman at least recognise that the point which my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has raised is of great importance, that where the throughput of British industry is not capable of becoming viable when in competition with overseas he must make a choice whether he wants to go in with Europe or in with America?

Mr. Benn: In this area it is not a matter of political choice. One is looking at it industry by industry, at the nature and character of the firm concerned, and the long-term economic and balance of payments price one might pay by allowing certain critical firms to come under overseas control. However, it cannot be presented simply as a choice between Europe and the United States. It is much more complicated than that.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again on the Adjournment.

Nuclear-Powered Vessels

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Technology what progress he has made in his discussions with the shipbuilding and maritime interests over the possibility of constructng nuclear-powered container and bulk cargo vessels; and when he will make a statement about the technical and financial aspects of such a venture.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for the


construction of nuclear-powered container ships.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the consultations he has had with the Shipbuilding Industry Board about the use of marine nuclear propulsion for merchant ships, in particular, container ships; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the development of systems of marine nuclear propulsion.

Mr. Fowler: The study of the probable costs and benefits of a nuclear ship project, of which I informed the House on 15th April, is now proceeding. Information is being sought from shipbuilders, shipowners, the Shipbuilding Industry Board and others. We hope to have the first results of the study by the autumn.—[Vol. 781, c. 230.]

Mr. Brooks: Will my hon. Friend confirm that several shipbuilding companies, including Cammell Laird, have now submitted propoals for a feasibility study, the total cost of which would be the equivalent of the average daily escalation in costs of the Concorde during the past eight years? Would this not be an entirely appropriate method of investing funds in long-term technological innovation which might have an important bearing on our balance of payments position in the years ahead?

Mr. Fowler: It is true that some firms have submitted proposals.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the situation has changed greatly since the Padmore Committee reported, and that there are grounds for haste in this matter if the possibility of a class of nuclear-propelled ships is to be examined? Will he press on regardless of the fact that certain vested interests, such as the oil industry, can, obviously, have no interest in such a project?

Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree that the situation has changed since the Padmore Committee. I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to a class of ships. We have to look here at the economics of a fleet of nuclear-propelled ships, not simply at the economics of a single ship. As for haste, I agree that we want to reach the right decision as quickly as

possible, but it must be the right economic decision, and that is where we have to take great care.

Mr. David Price: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm the implication of his last answer, that the study will look at the use of nuclear-powered vessels as part of a commercial fleet and not in isolation, since it is most unlikely that individually they would today be economic, but as part of a fleet the case is a good deal stronger?

Mr. Fowler: I willingly confirm that. I think that this is where some other countries may have gone wrong, in building ships which even as part of a fleet could not be economic and certainly individually could never be economic.

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will organise an international conference in Great Britain and invite to it United States, German, Japanese and British shipbuilding firms and shipping firms whch have experience in the designing and operation of nuclear-powered vessels.

Mr. Fowler: The Department was represented at a seminar on this subject held in May by the European Nuclear Energy Agency, and we do not think that it would be useful at present for this country to organise a further international conference.

Mr. Brooks: But will my hon. Friend confirm that at least a number of advanced industrial countries, notably Japan, apparently seem to be persuaded of the merits of pressing ahead with investment in this project, and would it not be obviously in our self-interest at least to consult them to find out why they take that view?

Mr. Fowler: We have consulted those countries, at the seminar which I mentioned and on other occasions. I hope that my hon. Friend will not mislead the House: the Japanese have gone ahead with a nuclear-powered oceanographic survey ship. This is by no means the same sort of thing as a nuclear-powered container ship or bulk carrier.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that none of the countries which have operated nuclear-powered vessels so far—the Americans, the Germans, the Japanese and the Russians—has sought to break even but has done it only to acquire


experience? Before going ahead in response to the pressures put on him today, will he make sure that shipbuilding companies involved in such an enterprise would be willing to put up their own money as well as making use of the Ministry's money?

Mr. Fowler: It is vital in a field such as this that, if a proposition is put up which can be profitable, firms should show their own confidence in its profitability by putting some of their own money at stake.

Oceanography and Underwater Technology

Mr. Moonman: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he has taken to give support to oceanography and underwater technology; and if he will make a statement of Her Majesty's Government's future plans in these fields.

Mr. Fowler: Support for oceanography comes from the N.E.R.C., which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Marine technology is under constant discussion by the Inter-departmental Advisory Committee on Marine Technology which was set up in April, 1968. A number of contracts have been placed by the Department on behalf of this committee during the past year. Information about some of these has appeared in the Press, and announcements about future contracts will be made whenever appropriate.

Mr. Moonman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the task of contemporary Government is to try to assess the advanced industries which can be exploited commercially over a period of 10 or 15 years, and does he agree that oceanography is one such, and that it may well be that, if he can get the structure right in the Government, where two Departments are involved, we might consider this as a suitable project for co-ordination and collaboration in Europe?

Mr. Fowler: I am interested in my hon. Friend's last proposition. It is important to distinguish the pure science aspects of oceanographic work and the part of the work which may have a payoff in economic terms, to which, perhaps, underwater technology is crucially relevant.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: How did it come about that the Committee on Marine Technology was set up nearly a year before publication of the White Paper which eventually recommended its setting up? Second, will the hon. Gentleman say why industry was not brought into it, too?

Mr. Fowler: On the latter point, industry is consulted regularly on a firm-by-firm basis. It would be difficult, however, to have industry represented on the committee since that would mean selecting one or two firms from a range of competitors, which could only cause ill will and produce a situation in which no one would be willing to reveal all the cards in his hand. As to why the Committee was set up so early, that is merely a demonstration of how rapidly the Ministry of Technology moves.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my hon. Friend say, in reference to the matters envisaged in this Question, what kind of support he gives—scientific or financial—and what tests he applies to ensure that both his support and public money are not wasted?

Mr. Fowler: The support given consists in part of technical knowledge, technical expertise, but it consists also of financial support. I mentioned the contracts which the Department has placed with various outside bodies as well as Government research stations. The normal tests to make sure that the cost-benefits of such work are adequate apply in this field as in any other.

Computers

Mr. Moonman: asked the Minister of Technology how many computers were in use in Great Britain in 1960, 1965 and 1968; and how many he estimates will be in use in 1971.

Dr. Bray: The numbers of computers of all kinds, other than computers used for defence purposes, in use in the United Kingdom at the end of 1960, 1965, and 1968 have been estimated at approximately 200, 1,500 and 4,000 respectively. I estimate that by the end of 1971 the corresponding figure will be over 7,000.

Mr. Moonman: Is my hon. Friend aware that if we are trying to advance the British computer industry and avoid buying American, these figures are still


dismal? Does he agree that the original 1965 predictions have not been met? Therefore, will he seriously consider making representations to the industries concerned to see how we can make the best possible improvement and maintain the figure he has now given for 1971?

Dr. Bray: I am not sure what 1965 estimates my hon. Friend is referring to, but we have successfully increased our estimates every time we have made any. As for the contribution of British manufacturers to this figure of computer usage, it is substantial. Indeed, it is greater than in any other country outside the United States. We are confident that the industry's contribution in future will be greater still.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: What is the present proportion of British computers, and what is it estimated to be in 1971?

Dr. Bray: The proportion of British-made computers is about a half, but I could not give an estimate for 1971 without notice.

Mr. James Hamilton: is my hon. Friend aware that many computers are unnecessarily being imported? Is he aware that Honeywell in my constituency can cope with the market quite capably, and that in many cases, even with nationalised industries, it is not afforded the opportunity to tender?

Dr. Bray: The contribution of American computer manufacturers in this country is very welcome, and the terms under which they sell their machines to the public sector have been well known for a number of years. There is no restriction on Honeywell sales to the public sector.

Mr. Hordern: Is the Minister saying that the number of computers at present in operation in the United Kingdom exceeds that in operation in France and West Germany and Japan?

Dr. Bray: The latest figures I can find that are in any way comparable are for 1967, and are as follows: United Kingdom, 2,600 France, 1,400: West Germany, 3,100 Italy, 1,400.

Mr. David Price: Does not the Minister agree that numbers of computers tell us nothing? It depends entirely on the size, computing power and software pro-

gramme. Could he not, with the industry, think of a more effective method of measuring the computing power from year to year than simply talking of numbers of computers, which are meaningless?

Dr. Bray: We have just published figures for the turnover of computer service firms, which is a step in the direction the hon. Gentleman suggests. However, I think that the figure for total numbers of computers in use is meaningful, because there is a distribution of the different sizes in use in different countries.

Upper Clyde Shipbuilders

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will now publish or place in the Library in advance of the next annual report of the Shipbuilding Industry Board, further details of the financial forecasts on the basis of which further public money is being advanced to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.

Mr. Benn: I have considered this proposal very carefully but have concluded that it would not be right to do so.

Mr. Digby: In view of the amount of public money—I believe about 48 per cent.—now invested, is not the House entitled to the same kind of information as shareholders would have, particularly in view of the rather disquieting stories of resignations, another of which is reported in the papers today?

Mr. Bean: I think that the hon. Gentleman understands the difficulty about doing this whenever the Government do business with any firm. We have had business with the aircraft firms for a very long time without information of any kind being given to the House or authorisation sought. We now have the innovations of the Shipbuilding Industry Act and the Industrial Expansion Act, under which much more information is made available. If anybody needed to be convinced of the damage which can be done by unnecessary publicity, one need only look at the case of the firm with which we are here concerned.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us appreciate the dangers of over-exposure in the affairs of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders?


Is he aware that he is extremely popular in Glasgow, and that he may be invited to take part in the Gorbals by-election campaign? Will he try to find out before then which Conservative voice is stating official policy?

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sooner we get away from the atmosphere of continuing crisis in Clydeside and back to the business of building ships the better it will be for U.C.S. and those who work for it? In view of the concern about the number of resignations, when does he expect that the gaps in its board may be filled?

Mr. Benn: I have made it clear in the House many times that it has never been my purpose or intention to run Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. The purpose of the exercise has been to get the company to take responsibility for its own affairs, and to provide the support necessary through the Shipbuilding Industry Board.

Mr. Rankin: As the S.I.B. has no abiding place in the shipbuilding structure, why should it have such power over Clydeside in settling its shipbuilding affairs?

Mr. Benn: The power of the Shipbuilding Industry Board is entrusted to it by Parliament. If we did not have the board one of two things would happen. Either no support for the industry would be made available or it would be given by direct Ministerial intervention at every point. That would be highly undesirable compared with the operations of a board which has on it business men, experienced trade union members and others with the objective of creating a viable industry.

Aircraft Manufacture (Anglo-European Co-operation)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will publish a White Paper on the experience to date of Anglo-European co-operation in aircraft manufacture.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Mainly because of the need to preserve military and commercial confidentiality, I do not think it would be helpful to publish a paper. If, however, bearing in mind these

limits, the hon. Member has any specific points on which he desires information, I should be very ready to consider them, and, where possible, to provide the House with the answers.

Mr. Onslow: I had hoped that the Minister might go slightly further. Is he satisfied that there are no Anglo-European projects in which additional costs have not proved excessive, or where the surrender of design leadership on the British side has not been very damaging to our future capabilities?

Mr. Mallalieu: We have not reached the point of full-scale production on any major project, so it is very difficult to say how they are going. However, I would expect to find some increase in total costs because of collaboration, but to find the share of each country substantially lower.

Mr. Dalyell: Is not the truth that the best form of Anglo-European co-operation is in marketing? Will my right hon. and hon. Friends do their best to persuade the Europeans of the merits of the Harrier?

Mr. Mallalieu: I will persuade anybody of the merits of the Harrier at any time of the day or night. I am sure that marketing is an essential part of collaboration.

Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford

Mr. Brian Parkyn: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the future rôle of the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford.

Mr. Fowler: Subject to any decision which may be taken as a result of the Commission of Inquiry into the siting of the third London airport, the rôle of the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford, will remain as at present to carry out research in wind tunnels and in flight in support of new aerospace projects.

Mr. Parkyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that precisely because this might be selected as the site for London's third airport there is considerable disquiet and concern about the future of the staff at the R.A.E., Bedford?

Mr. Fowler: We are well aware of the problems and are conducting our own studies into this matter. We shall give evidence to the Roskill Commission.

Research

Mr. David Price: asked the Minister of Technology over what period of time beyond the current financial year he is currently budgeting for the research establishments under his control.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Four years, Sir.

Mr. Price: Do I gather that the four-year programme is a rolling programme and not static? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Treasury will guarantee to honour the commitment of this four-year programme when the actual year of expenditure is reached?

Mr. Mallalieu: This is a rolling programme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I can give no guarantee on behalf of the Treasury.

Mr. David Price: asked the Minister of Technology when he now expects to publish the White Paper on Research Policy forecast in the February, 1968, number of New Technology.

Mr. Benn: Various developments in our research policy have already been announced; and others are under discussion. These will be made known as soon as possible.

Mr. Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the same Question as I put down on 1st April, 1968, when he said that he had decided to defer publication of a White Paper? Will he produce a White Paper some time before the end of this Parliament?

Mr. Benn: My answers have improved every time the hon. Gentleman has put down Questions to me about this matter. I discovered, in considering the question of a White Paper, that I would be imposing a rigidity on myself in that I would be unable to do things in advance of a White Paper, which would be delayed until everything was tied up. We have the A.E.A. reorganisation which is part of this; we have introduced a new scheme for industrial control of research programmes; and we have also looked at this from the point of view of the ceiling on civil developments and civil applications coming along and the rundown of military developments. Therefore, I would rather not commit myself at this

stage as to when I would publish a White Paper.

Mr. Moonman: While recognising the strain that a White Paper imposes on a Department, could I ask my hon. Friend whether he would consider issuing a Green Paper which would also refer to the industrial exploitation section of the Ministry, which would be helpful.

Mr. Benn: We have considered issuing a green paper, a White Paper with green chapters and various other things. But I would prefer to do it as soon as I am able to say what should be done.

Machine Tools

Mr. Hordern: asked the Minister of Technology what representations he has received from the machine tool industry about the current intake of orders.

Dr. Bray: None, Sir.

Mr. Hordern: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the United States the figures of orders for machine tools in May were produced in June? Is there any reason why we should not issue our figures for May in June and not have to wait until the middle of July?

Dr. Bray: We publish the figures within a week of receiving the returns from firms. My right hon. Friend has written to them asking them to speed up their returns but the response has not been good enough.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While welcoming the improvement, may I ask what attention the Ministry is giving to the fact that for the latest three months of this year our deliveries of machine tools were 9 per cent down on the previous three months? This is serious.

Dr. Bray: One has to look over a somewhat longer period. The trend this year of deliveries has been generally upwards and will continue upwards in view of the increased order intake. In the first four months of 1969, compared with the same period in 1968, the increase was 10 per cent.

Mr. Dalyell: Surely the shortcomings in this matter are the responsibility of the firms and not of the Government.

Dr. Bray: We have got confused between the sending of returns and the level


of orders and deliveries. The level of orders and deliveries is extremely satisfactory, encouraging and improving, and is much to the credit of the firms.

Process Plant Industry

Mr. Howie: asked the Minister of Technology when he expects the Process Plant Expert Committee to report to him.

Dr. Bray: We hope to receive the report and recommendations of the Process Plant Expert Committee appointed by my right hon. Friend in the near future.

Mr. Howie: When my hon. Friend says "the near future", no doubt he means the future, but how near is "near"?

Dr. Bray: Days rather than weeks.

Mr. Howie: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to ensure that the process plant industry is able to meet the increased demand recently forecast by the National Economic Development Council Process Plant Working Party.

Dr. Bray: Rationalisation among firms making process plant, including pressure vessels, pumps, valves, instruments, desalination and electrical equipment, is bearing fruit in increased efficiency and capacity. Closer contacts between makers and users are being established. Consultations will take place on further action when the report of the Process Plant Expert Committee has been received.

Mr. Howie: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a large potential export market for our process plant manufacturers? Does he think they are now in a position to seize it?

Dr. Bray: Yes, Sir. I am well aware of this, and United Kingdom-based chemical engineering contractors have set themselves ambitious targets for exports of British-made equipment.

Heavy Electrical Manufacturers

Mr. Rhodes: asked the Minister of Technology whether, in view of the reduced ordering by the Central Electricity Generating Board, he will take steps to increase the export activities of heavy electrical manufacturers.

Dr. Bray: Heavy electrical manufacturers are well aware of the need to increase the proportion of their deliveries

going overseas. Government support for the increase includes the adoption of standards suitable for overseas markets, the rationalisation of the industry, the encouragement of the use of the experience of the Central Electricity Generating Board, area boards and the Atomic Energy Authority by overseas operators and the activities of diplomatic posts.

Mr. Rhodes: I thank my hon. Friend but will he bear in mind that in the past large producers such as Reyrolle Parsons on Tyneside have relied heavily on C.E.G.B. orders to give them a base for research and development work vital for overseas markets? In view of this, will he continue to encourage and co-ordinate and help all the companies involved in order to capture these vital markets in future?

Dr. Bray: We are in close touch with the heavy electrical manufacturers on their programmes, and when we can join collaborative projects with them we are ready to do so.

Mr. David Price: Will the hon. Gentleman, as a sponsoring Minister for this industry, have urgent discussions with the Ministry of Power to ensure that the comments of the Wilson Committee are implemented and that there is better and more even planning of power generation capital investment programmes of the electricity board?

Dr. Bray: The recommendations of the Wilson Committee are under active discussion. I have discussed them with the major manufacturers.

Electricity Generating and Distribution Equipment

Mr. Rhodes: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will institute a study of the world market for electricity generating and distribution equipment, with a view to ensuring that the combined efforts of the electrical manufacturers, the consultants and the Central Electricity Generating Board are being deployed to the best effect in support of British exports.

Dr. Bray: A contract is being placed with the Science Policy Research Unit under Mr. Christopher Freeman at Sussex University on the factors significant for success in the world market for heavy electrical generating and distribution


equipment, following the valuable survey carried out by this unit on process plant.

Mr. Rhodes: That is an encouraging reply. Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the companies involved in this work readily respond to the Government if the Government give any kind of encouragement? I hope that he will continue to work with them.

Dr. Bray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. These companies appreciate that ways of doing business that were right in the past will not necessarily be right in the future.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (DISPUTE, EASTERN REGION)

Mr. Channon: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the signal-men's dispute on the Eastern Region of British Rail.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): An unofficial three-day strike by some signalmen, which began yesterday in the Eastern Region of British Railways, has affected services in certain areas. In the London area, about 70 per cent. of commuter services using Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street, and about 50 per cent. of services using Kings Cross, were operated yesterday and this morning. Some main line passenger services from London to the North, between the North-East and the Midlands, and between Sheffield and Manchester, have been affected by strike action at Doncaster and Sheffield. There has also been some interference with freight traffic.
The action by the men involved has been taken against the advice of the National Union of Railwaymen, which has condemned the strike and is using its best endeavours to get the men back to work. The Railways Board has been talking again today with senior officials of the union and is taking all possible steps to minimise inconvenience and delay to passengers and freight.
There is no justification for this unconstitutional action and every effort is being made by British Railways and the National Union of Railwaymen to bring the strike to an end.

Mr. Channon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many travellers are very

grateful to British Railways for their efforts, in spite of these difficulties, to provide services? Will he convey that feeling to British Railways?
However, is he aware that this is the second time within a week that he has had to tell the House about an unofficial strike seriously inconveniencing many thousands of travellers? What action does he propose to take in future to deal with these matters before rather than after the strike stage has been reached?

Mr. Marsh: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about British Railways. Dealing with a problem of this size is very difficult and I am sure that his views will be appreciated.
Both strikes were about signalmen, although the backgrounds are rather different. It is worth bearing in mind that last week's strike was intended to be a regular weekly affair. I do not want to say much about it, but it was largely as a result of the union's action that that was not so.
I do not want to minimise the inconvenience to the public, but we should not be unaware of the fact that the industrial relations record of British Railways over the last year or so has been incomparably better than it was in the past.

Mr. Moonman: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that this is a serious matter, involving large numbers of people? Will he say precisely what help he has received from the Department of Employment and Productivity and whether the T.U.C. Strike Committee has been brought in?

Mr. Marsh: The Department of Employment and Productivity and my Ministry are very much involved in watching the situation, because negotiations are taking place jointly and action is taking place both with the employers and the National Union of Railwaymen. For that reason, the T.U.C. has not yet been invited to intervene, because we ought to see whether the N.U.R. can repeat its undoubted earlier success.

Sir S. McAdden: I join in the tributes which have been rightly paid to all grades of railway staff who have tried to help to ease this very difficult situation. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last train from Fenchurch Street this evening will leave at 6.45 and that many groups


of employees, such as those engaged on shift work, newspaper workers, workers in the catering industry, and not least the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), cannot get home?

Mr. Marsh: I will certainly look into the matter of the specific train to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I am sure that he will recognise that British Railways will consider it in the context of their overall operational problems.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the National Union of Railwaymen is doing all in its power to get the men back to work? Is he aware that at this very moment telegrams are being dispatched to all branches in the Eastern Region asking the men to return to work as soon as possible?

Mr. Marsh: I am aware of much of the action being taken by the N.U.R. The speech by the General Secretary of the N.U.R. this morning was very courageous in the circumstances, but at this stage I would rather not say too much about exactly what the union is doing.

Mr. Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of people are using private cars to get to work and are finding themselves penalised by having to pay fines for improper parking because there are no additional parking spaces? Will he use his good offices with the G.L.C. and ask it to remove parking restrictions in the centre of the city during periods of strike?

Mr. Marsh: No. We have considered this. The Metropolitan Police drew up contingency plans in advance of the strike yesterday. They have provided temporary clearways on a number of roads, extra traffic patrols and free car-parking facilities at Hackney Marshes, by agreement with the G.L.C., and in Victoria Park. One of the difficulties of making parking widely available in Central London is that it can increase congestion by being used by people not affected by the strike.

Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend says that there is no justification for the strike. Can the House, for once, be told exactly what the issues are in a strike? Time after time we have statements from Ministers without being told exactly why workers are going on strike. It is my experience that workers do not go on strike unless they have some justification.

Mr. Marsh: I would slightly qualify what my hon. Friend has said. I think that generally they do not go on strike unless they think that they have some justification—they do not do it capriciously. I do not believe that they are justified and the men concerned obviously believe that they are.
It is not difficult to find reasons for the strike. It arises out of the railway pay and efficiency negotiations from which the railwaymen had an overall 3 per cent. increase. Unlike some other grades, these men did not get the further increases. They have been given an undertaking that at stage 2 this will be considered. This was agreed with the union and the union is still sticking to the bargain. In those circumstances, the men are not justified in striking.

Mr. Rhodes: I thank my right hon. Friend for his constructive approach to this problem. May I impress upon him the grave urgency of this matter, particularly because of the spread of the strike? Will he bear in mind that not only are services to Newcastle-upon-Tyne seriously disrupted, but that at 6 a.m. the Gateshead depôt is to go on strike, thus severely inconveniencing passenger and freight traffic in that area? The men are not striking without undue cause and ultimately the matter will have to be settled by the sides being brought together.

Mr. Marsh: The position could be very serious. This is a large industry and we are talking about 310 men who are causing enormous difficulties. There is no easy way out of this and the House would be well advised to appreciate that the union and the employers are trying to persuade the men to give up a strike which the union does not support.

BILL PRESENTED

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT (AMENDMENT) (No. 2)

Bill to extend the powers of the Minister of Housing and Local Government under section 4 of the Public Health Act 1961, presented by Dr. Reginald Bennett; supported by Sir Clive Bossom, Mr. R. Gresham Cooke, Sir John Langford-Holt, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mr. Arnold Shaw. Mr. James Wellbeloved, and Mr. John Wells; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 193.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS REDISTRI BUTION OF SEATS (No. 2) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

3.38 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move,
That pursuant to Standing Order No. 43A (Allocation of time to Bills) the Committee on the Bill shall report the Bill on or before Monday, 14th July and as respects proceedings in that Committee the Business Committee shall make recommendations to the House.
This is a Motion under Standing Order No. 43A to bring the Committee stage of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill to an end on or before 14th July and to invite the Business Committee to propose an allocation of time accordingly.
I do not propose to try to emulate the degree of heat engendered by right hon. and hon. Members opposite last night. As Leader of the House, I think that some of the occurrences of last night did credit neither to the Members concerned, nor to Parliament itself. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us start as we mean to go on, and cut out the noise which we had last night.

Mr. Peart: I think that, on reflection, those concerned will take a similar view: at least, I hope so.
One intervention which I particularly deplored was that of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), in referring to my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary as he did.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Quite right."] I do not think it is playing right to attack people who are not in a position to reply, and I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will regret that.
Although the Leader of the Opposition expressed indignation, he knows very well, from his own experience as a Chief Whip, that there come occasions in the life of any Government—as happened more under a Tory Government than under a Labour Government—when it is necessary for a Government to programme their business. Indeed, I have a fairly lengthy list of the occasions when,

as Chief Whip, he found it necessary to enforce the Closure of our debates. I have numerous precedents, which are on the record.
I have no doubt that these were generally justified. But I notice, with wry detachment, that he felt impelled to do so in the past on such matters as the Christmas Adjournment debate in 1956, and the no doubt critical measure of the debate on the India (Family Pensions Fund) Amendment Order in 1957. I do not, however, wish to dwell unduly on the events of last night, or to do any more to exacerbate the narrow party issues involved in this matter.
Turning to the Bill itself, its very nature inevitably means that it is a matter of great controversy in the House, but, not only is it a short Bill of four Clauses, but it is not by any means a complex Bill. Its proposals are clear and straightforward. Already, the general principles embodied in it have been endorsed by the House by substantial majorities. I do not think that the protracted discussion in this House is likely to elucidate any further the issues involved, or to reconcile the two basically conflicting views taken by the Government and the Opposition on this question.
The time allotted for the Committee stage of the Bill by the Government is, I think, reasonable and adequate, and no exception was taken to it when I announced it in the Business statement last Thursday.
Essentially, the Government's central proposition—already, as I say, endorsed by Parliament—is that it is reasonable, and indeed, essential, that Parliament should consider the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners in the light of the fundamental changes in the structure of local Government embodied in the recommendations of the Redcliffe-Maud Report.
Parliament is under no obligation, and, indeed, would, in the Government's view, be wholly unwise, to ignore the repercussions of the Redcliffe-Maud Report, and to press ahead with the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners as if such a far-reaching report had never been made. It would, in the Government's view, be wasteful and disruptive, in view of these impending radical


changes, for us to go blithely ahead, towards the probability of two major upheavals in the political map of the country in the short span of about 10 years. I think that this is clearly right.
There are differences, of course. Widely varying estimates have been made of the effect on existing constituencies of this decision, and still more widely varying estimates of the effect on the electoral prospects of the parties in the House—[An HON. MEMBER: "It will affect the Government more."] I am prepared to have a bet on that, but that is another matter. I will see the hon. Gentleman afterwards. But I think that, when the transient storms have passed, it will be accepted generally by the country that the Government's decision on this matter has, in fact, been determined not by any short-term party considerations, but with the genuine long-term interests of central and local government in the country in mind.
It is one of the purposes of the procedure under which this Motion is moved that the House should not be detained unduly on Motions of this kind, and that the debate should be confined to two hours only. I do not, therefore, propose to go further into the merits or demerits of the Bill, and I will leave my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, who will be winding up this short debate, to deal with any detailed points on the Bill which are raised.
I propose, however, to refer briefly to the procedure under Standing Order 43A and to try to rebut the general criticism that in moving the Motion the Government are somehow acting in an un-parliamentary or unconstitutional way.
The procedure under which we are acting was adopted by the House, following a Motion moved by my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary, on 6th December, 1967. Those who study the protracted discussion of the House on this matter will have no doubt that this Standing Order was given the most detailed consideration before the House decided that this accelerated time-table procedure should be embodied in our Standing Orders. So much for the criticism that this particular Motion comes, so to speak, "out of the blue."
In the Government's view, the conduct of the Opposition yesterday was not such as to give them any confidence that the

Committee stage of the Bill would be completed with reasonable expedition. The Leader of the Opposition claimed last night that no complaint could be made about the progress of the Bill—Amendments had been obtained at an average rate of four hours each. What he failed to mention was that that average would certainly not have been got without the Closure having been moved—the very Closures which his hon. Friends complained about.
It was open to the representatives of the Opposition when, in accordance with the requirements of Standing Order No. 43A, they were consulted about a voluntary time-table, to say that they would certainly dispose of the Bill within say another 40 hours. But did they? Not at all. It was, therefore, necessary to invoke the procedure of the Standing Order and, following the failure to agree with the Opposition. Mr. Speaker was informed last night that a Motion under Standing Order 43A would need to be moved. The present Motion was tabled last night accordingly.
It is, therefore, quite clear that what has been done in this instance is in full accordance with the procedures laid down in Standing Orders of the House. There is nothing underhand or unparliamentary in our dealing with the present position in this way: it is precisely this sort of situation which the Standing Order is designed to meet.
It is true…that all Members of the House regret very much a Guillotine Motion; and it is in the nature of things—and again quite rightly—that the Opposition, in particular, should resent it and should oppose it bitterly to the end."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1952; Vol. 499, c. 472–3.]
Before any hon. Member interrupts me after saying that, I should like to point out that that is what the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. kin Macleod) said, in circumstances similar to today's, on 23rd April, 1952, in a debate on a timetable Motion on the National Health Service Bill.
But, I go further. There are many precedents of right hon. and hon. Members moving a guillotine Motion. Conservative Governments have moved more guillotine Motions in one Session than have been moved in all the time of this Administration. In 1962—right hon. Gentlemen opposite who supported that Administration must accept this—they moved five guillotine Motions. We have


moved only two so far, and this is the third one today, in the life of two Parliaments. I could go further to show that, over and over again, when a Conservative Administration have thought fit to programme their business in the way that we are doing now, they have done it, and they know it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Gerrymandering."] There is no question of gerrymandering. I could give all the facts.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: rose—

Mr. Peart: In 1963, after guillotining five Bills, they did it over the London Government Bill. Of course, according to them, that was normal constitutional practice.

Mr. Duncan Sandys: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Leader of the House does not give way, the right hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Mr. Peart: Much as I should like to give way to a contender for the position of Leader of the Opposition, I cannot do so.
In our view, the Opposition's attitude yesterday made it inevitable that the Government should adopt this procedure, and I am confident that the House will endorse our view.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Quintin Hogg.

Mr. David Ensor: On a point of order. I should like to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which, I hope, involves the honour of the House. I wish to refer to the monstrous and outrageous behaviour last night of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw).

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot deal with a point of order on what happened last night. The opportunity to deal with what happened last night was last night. I dealt with the matter at the time.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: On a point of order. We seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the events which occurred yesterday evening in order to try to understand what the procedure would be today if there should

be a further outbreak of the sort of disgraceful conduct which occurred when the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon) and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) started to throw Order Papers around the Chamber.
We are about to enter into a debate on a matter of considerable importance, namely, the timetable Motion. It was apparent from previous occurrences yesterday that the inflammatory speeches of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot, under the guise of a point of order, have a réchauffé of all that happened last night. The hon. Gentleman asks Mr. Speaker how he would rule if certain eventualities happened. Mr. Speaker never rules on hypothetics. This is a brief debate; it is a serious debate. It must continue.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not waste time by persisting in raising point of order after point of order.

Mr. Albert Murray: On a point of order. Yesterday, we had points of order interrupted by debate. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in ascertaining which way this debate is likely to go today? Last evening, when the Leader—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate, as a point of order, what happened last evening. On the narrow point which the hon. Gentleman makes about whether we shall have a debate interspersed with points of order, may I say that he is doing his best to make it that.

Mr. Murray: I had not reached my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I proposed to ask you how far this debate will range, because the Leader of the Opposition ranged over Rhodesia and Ulster—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate last night's debate again today on points of order. I shall hear no points of order about last night's debate.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. I had not completed my point of order. It does not relate to last night's events.


I am trying to elucidate from you, Mr. Speaker, whether what happened yesterday could be avoided today—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman reads my earlier Ruling to him, he will see that I have dealt with that point. Mr. Hogg.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: rose—

Mr. Wellbeloved: My point of order is this. Mr. Speaker. To protect the good name of Parliament—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—to protect hon. Members on this side of the House from missiles thrown across the Chamber, may I ask whether it is within your power, Mr. Speaker, to order that all paper should be removed from the Chamber to prevent the disgraceful conduct to which the House was subjected by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham?

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the House were in danger, Mr. Speaker would take care to protect it. I do not see any danger now. Let us get on with the debate. Mr. Hogg.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House from time to time—[Interruption.] I remind the House from time to time that only the House can hurt itself and that the good name of Parliament—[Interruption.] Order—the good name of Parliament is in the hands of every individual Member. Mr. Roebuck.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point of order next.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: To facilitate progress, may I respectfully suggest that if the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon) and the hon. Member who is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition would be good enough to apologise for their disgraceful conduct yesterday, it would assist my hon. Friends and myself to give a quiet and courteous hearing to the hight hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg).

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member ought not to need any assistance in giving a courteous hearing to hon. Members with whose opinions he disagrees.

Mr. Hogg: May I respectfully—[HON. MEMBERS: "Point of order!"] This is a point of order. May I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it would not be better to debate this Motion on its merits rather than have needless points of order and needless personalities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not a single Member of the House would dissent from the sentiments expressed by the right hon. and learned Member. It is their application from time to time that troubles everybody.

Mr. Eric Moonman: On a point of order. Will you let us know, Mr. Speaker, whether you have received an apology from the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)? He may think little of hon. Members on this side of the House, but he should apologise to you.

Mr. Speaker: I have ruled that I shall take no more points of order on what happened last night.

Mr. W. Howie: On a point of order. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not wish to speak of the events last night. They were sufficiently disgraceful. I would, however, like to raise a point of order concerning today's debate, and receive your guidance.
I am in some difficulty in hoping, like many other hon. Members, to take part in the debate, should time permit. I notice that this is a timetable Motion, and I should like some guidance as to the nature of the debate which is to follow the debate on this Motion. In what order will Amendments to the Bill be taken, and at what time?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. That is a point that the hon Gentleman must take up with the Leader of the House at some time.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has, from time to time, acknowledged—I doubt not with complete sincerity—that he owes a duty to the House which transcends his duty


to either side of it. I beg him to ponder what I have to say carefully—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and courteously. I can assure him that I shall give neither him nor anyone else, so far as I can avoid it, any legitimate cause for personal offence.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I saw the hon. Member rise. I heard his voice. I hope that we shall get on with this very serious debate without spending too much time on points of order. Mr. Leadbitter.

Mr. Leadbitter: On a point of order. If we are able to take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments seriously the House will be—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not have points of argument disguised as points of order. That is not a point of order at all. Mr. Hogg. [Interruption.] I have ruled that that was not a point of order.

Mr. Leadbitter: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot persist in raising points of order. I have ruled that the first was not a point of order.

Mr. Leadbitter: My point of order is this: the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) stated that he did not wish to embark upon personalities. Will he now—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I will not hear any more points of order from the hon. Member at this moment.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Hogg: Mr. Speaker, I propose to use no kind of provocation at all, and I propose to respond in no way at all to provocation offered to me. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Apart from the disorder that has taken place, nothing has happened in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech of five or six words that can call for another point of order.

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: On a point of order. I cannot hear

the right hon. and learned Member, and I want to know whether he is putting an apology before the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot be heard it is the fault of hon. Members on the Government side. [Interruption.] Order. This is not the first time in the last fortnight that one side or the other—I blame both equally—has prevented spokesmen from the other side being heard.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. Will you give me your guidance, Mr. Speaker? On previous occasions this side of the House has been subjected to all sorts of abuse and annoyance, and not once have those strictures been applied to the Opposition which are now being applied to hon. Members on this side. We greatly respect your endeavours to protect all Members of the House, but we ask that we get equality of treatment.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member will read, tomorrow, the Ruling that I have just given he will see that I attacked both sides for the same kind of disorder.

Mr. Hogg: I was about to say this to the right hon. Gentleman, in the name of the duty to which I have referred: obviously guillotine Motions are moved from time to time by both sides, whichever party is in power. The question in each case is not whether such Motions are necessary—we know that such Motions sometimes are—but whether the particular Motion is justified. It is to that question that I wish to address myself and to address, through you, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman.
In considering the validity or otherwise of a Motion of this kind—as I hope the House will agree—we have to look to a variety of different factors. One of these is the nature of the legislation proposed and the necessity for it. The right hon. Gentleman—if I may command his attention for a moment—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has already referred to that factor, and I propose to deal with it shortly.
Another of the factors to be taken into consideration is the length of the discussion which would be required by that legislation unimpeded by any artificial barrier.
The third, I take it, would be the urgency of the legislation, to have it by


a particular date; and, perhaps, fourth, the extent to which, if at all, the Government have legitimate cause to apprehend organised obstruction.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hogg: First of all, on the nature of the legislation, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the Bill, as he says, is a Bill of four Clauses. Owing to the selection by the Chair in Committee there would be, I think, nine debates. Two of these have already been concluded; both closured, in the case of the former, at least, some of us, including myself, ventured to think, prematurely.

Mr. Stanley Henig: Surprise, surprise.

Mr. Hogg: The House concluded its proceedings shortly after midnight last night, and two hours of its time today are being taken up by the Motion we are now discussing. I would have thought that, by now, had we continued to sit without the guillotine Motion, and with the addition of the two hours we are taking up now, we would have got a considerable distance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."]—a considerable distance through the Committee stage, with or without the assistance of the Closure proposed, no doubt, at legitimate intervals by the Patronage Secretary. [An HON. MEMBER: "That was not what was said last night."] The question is how far the Guillotine is justified in these circumstances.
The right hon. Gentleman has complained of the behaviour on this side of the House. He has been long enough in the House, and on both sides of it, as, indeed, have I, to know that there never is an occasion upon which, whether rightly or wrongly, the Opposition regard themselves as being stifled unfairly, that this sort of thing does not happen. I do not wish to prolong the discussion of that aspect of the matter beyond saying that we feel a sense of grievance which I appeal to him, as Leader of the whole House, to ponder seriously from the point of view of the duty to which I referred to begin with.

Mr. Archie Manuel: Oh, no.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that the Bill is a controversial

matter; and he referred in general to its nature. I will do the same.
It is a Bill the purpose of which is to suspend for a more or less indefinite period, but with a maximum of 15 years, the constitutional arrangements for the delineation of electoral boundaries recently, or comparatively recently, introduced, and comparatively recently amended, by agreement between the parties, and universally, I think, acclaimed at the time as a valuable addition to our constitutional arrangements, which put them above party, and the reason for it, be it good or bad, is alleged to be the inconvenience caused to the electorate by a second redistribution after the conclusion of local government reorganisation.
Now, that is something which does require discussion, but the right hon. Gentleman must accept, and hon. Members opposite must realise, that we on this side of the House do not believe—that the case had been made out, that there would be serious inconvenience at the end of 10 years, that is, if Parliaments, as they have done, averaged three years' apiece, after two, three, or four General Elections—that it would justify a suspension of constitutional arrangements of that kind.
It is, therefore, with a sense of very real indignation, even if hon. Members opposite do not think it justified, that we oppose the provisions of the Bill. We have not failed to note, and the right hon. Gentleman will not have failed to note, either, that these views, which are not held merely in the party to which I belong, but outside it, and in a very wide section of the serious Press, are associated will the belief, be it right or wrong, and be it intentional or unintentional, that the effect of the Bill would be to give a bonus of between eight and 20 seats to the Government party in the absence of any swing—one of which is said to be the Prime Minister's. One would think, in the light of these questions, that the right hon. Gentleman, as trustee for the interests of both sides of the House, would almost fall over backwards to establish his own integrity in the matter.
This brings me to the second of the points which I have enumerated, the question of urgency. Again, the right hon. Gentleman must accept this from me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—that we at least sincerely believe that the case for


urgency has not only not been made, has not been attempted, and was certainly not attempted in his short speech this afternoon, and that any degree of urgency which there may be is the direct result of the Government's having deliberately left their action to the last possible moment. It has not so far been disputed that this legislation could have been brought forward at least as soon as the terms of reference of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission were made known, but certainly not later than when the report was in the hands of the Government. But, in truth and in fact, the Government not merely delayed action, but concealed their intentions—[HON. MEM-bers: "Oh."]—even so recently—and the Home Secretary knows that the point I am about to put is true—even so recently as the Motion which I moved two or three weeks ago.
Before I made my speech I pointed out to the Home Secretary that he was under no obligation whatever to disclose the Government's intentions to me, but that I would very much appreciate it if he did, but he quite deliberately did not. All I am saying is that if the Government are going to delay disclosure of their intentions to that degree till the last possible moment, they cannot legitimately be heard to complain of urgency.
Now I come to the third point, the Committee stage of the Bill. We deliberately framed Amendments which accepted the main principle of the Bill, and the Home Secretary, in his short speech yesterday afternoon, was good enough to accept that that was so in the case of the first two Amendments which we were then discussing. He knew—or, at any rate, he knows now—that I attached very great importance to those Amendments. I proposed them in a short speech, which can be read in HANSARD, that lasted 15 minutes. I proposed them in a speech which the Home Secretary himself was good enough to agree was highly conciliatory in tone and content, and we received what we thought—and the right hon. Gentleman must accept that we did think—what we thought was a very perfunctory reply.
Then the second Amendment came—and I want to say this, without any desire to give personal offence to the right hon. Gentleman, but simply to ex-

plain the point of view which we held. When the second Amendment was called, after the opening speech, which again lasted for 15 minutes and no more, and had been going on for two minutes, the Home Secretary left the Chamber without the usual explanation or apology—

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of Order. In view of your earlier Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that it was not in order to refer to incidents that occurred last night, is the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) in order in referring to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary walking out of the Chamber?

Mr. Speaker: I ruled that I can give no ruling as to order on what happened last night. The House can, however, refer to what happens at any time.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. It is within my recollection, Mr. Speaker, that you resisted my earlier point of order on the basis that it referred to the events of yesterday evening, and that it was only when I rose again to say that my point of order was not on the events of last night but on today's events that you heard me. It is within my recollection, subject to your reaffirming your Ruling, that we were not in order in referring to yesterday's events. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing precisely what you denied me the opportunity of doing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I denied the hon. Gentleman the opportunity of raising what happened last night as a point of order. If he gets into the debate, he, like any other hon. Member, can refer to what happened last night.

Mr. Hogg: I refer to this as delicately as I can, Mr. Speaker, not because I wish to complain that the Under-Secretary of State, who is a widely respected figure in the House, was asked to reply, but because it is common knowledge—and this is common to Governments of both complexions—that when an Under-Secretary, in the absence of his right hon. Friend, is left to reply he has no authority to go beyond in concession what has been told him before the beginning of the debate.
This has a definite bearing upon what the right hon. Gentleman told the House about the prospects of a voluntary timetable. It is perfectly true that the right


hon. Gentleman asked my right hon. Friend and me whether we would consent to a voluntary timetable. My answer was, "That must depend upon the extent to which we shall receive concessions during the course of discussion." The right hon. Gentleman then said to me, "What concession do you want?", and I said, "Will you give me any?".

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman commits himself too far, it is in order to refer to the fact that there was such a meeting last night, but is it in order—and I put this for the right hon. and learned Gentleman"s consideration, too—to refer to what must be partial accounts of what took place at that meeting? This means that there will be two versions; we shall have to keep minutes and have shorthand writers. I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we should be a little careful. I say this in the hope that it will help before we get into that kind of discussion.

Mr. Hogg: I would, Mr. Speaker, have accepted that entirely, but for the fact that the Leader of the House referred to that conversation partially and, evidently, his reference made some impact upon his hearers, since it was loudly cheered.
Without reference to the conversation I will say what is my attitude. It would have varied a great deal according to what concessions were likely to be offered in Committee; but it has been made plain to us that no concessions whatever would be offered, and that the Government are intent on getting the Bill without Amendment and, therefore, without a Report stage. So long as that attitude persists, there can be no chance of a voluntary timetable. What is the good of—

Mr. William Molloy: rose—

Mr. Howie: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not give way, the two hon. Gentlemen must resume their seats.

Mr. Hogg: I would certainly have given way but for the way in which I have hitherto been denied a hearing—

Mr. Molloy: rose—

Mr. Howie: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentlemen must not persist if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not give way.

Mr. Hogg: There can be no use in asking the Opposition for a voluntary timetable when we are given to understand that no Amendments of any kind will be accepted, whatever may be our reasons. If we know that nothing we say will have any effect, a voluntary timetable is utterly useless and would be a betrayal of the case which we are now seeking to present.
We are being asked by both right hon. Gentlemen to pass the Bill under the Guillotine in the name of the sovereignty of Parliament. Again, I emphasise that I do not wish to give the right hon. Gentleman personal offence, but I ask him what kind of Parliament it will be whose sovereignty we are asked to uphold? Is it to be a Parliament which believes in government by discussion, or is it to be the dictatorship of a temporary majority? If it is the latter, the sooner we end the sovereignty of Parliament, and substitute the rule of government by reason and discussion, the better.
The very name "Parliament" presupposes discussion, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman, with all the sincerity that I can command, to think again, in the name of his loyalty to the whole House and not to party, before we proceed with this procedural Motion. I have appealed to him in that name up to this point, but I wish to make a second and more personal appeal to him to consider carefully what will be the long-term effect of the course which he is now proposing upon the reputation of the Labour Party.
What would one think of a man who was caught with an ace up his sleeve and who, when challenged about it, did not, like Mr. Gladstone, refer to supernatural agencies, but claimed that it was a matter of administrative convenience, and, when this was challenged, drew a gun to prevent an argument? I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in the name of Parliament and Parliamentary government, to resile from his present position in an age when liberty, freedom and law are in retreat throughout the world, and


in an age when men look to this House of Commons for patterns in these things. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, with all the sincerity that I can command, to respond to my appeal, and to return to constitutional powers before it is too late.

Mr. Peart: I want to say to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who has waxed so strongly on the Bill and whose approach I reject, that I would better judge his sincerity if he were prepared to withdraw his insulting remark last night to my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip.

Mr. Hogg: If I had been approached in any circumstances other than the way in which I have been treated this afternoon—

Mr. Charles Pannell: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry, but I am in the middle of a sentence. If I had been approached—

Mr. William Hamilton: Why should the right hon. and learned Gentleman be approached?

Mr. Hogg: If I had been approached in any other way than I have been approached by the other side this afternoon, I would have said that, if I had caused the smallest personal offence to any Member of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I would be deeply sorry. As it is, I can only repeat my remark.

Hon. Member: Shame.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Seldom during the course of a prolonged experience of this Assembly have I listened to such a sanctimonious, arrogant and deceptive speech as the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has just delivered to the House. He is inclined to indulge in epithets. Yesterday, he indulged in an epithet of a most offensive kind against my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. We also can indulge in epithets. I have known the right hon. and learned Gentleman over the years, and the only epithet or description I can indulge in is that he is the immaculate deception.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was not directed to my right hon.

Friend the Leader of the House, or to the Home Secretary, or to these benches. It was directed, for the foreseeable future, to those in another place. That is the game the right hon. and learned Gentleman is playing.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave his case away absolutely and emphatically at the end of his speech, although it might well have been fortuitous. He said that if only my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had been ready to make concessions, everything in the garden would have been lovely. But, alternatively, if my right hon. Friend is unwilling or unable to make concessions, the Opposition will provide the alternative. What is that alternative? It is outrageous behaviour.
This might have been expected—I say this with great respect, meaning no offence—from my hon. Friends on this side of the House, considering how they have been brought up. But this is not the kind of behaviour we expect from products of the high scholastic institutions, from Harrow and Eton, and is certainly not the reason why their parents should have been involved in considerable expenditure. I have often doubted—but do not expect a large measure of agreement here—the value of education. After all, I myself have managed without it—

Sir Douglas Glover: So have most of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues.

Mr. Shinwell: I understand that although it is not an unparliamentary expression to describe other hon. Members, or even right hon. Members, as hypocrites, which is quite Parliamentary, one must not describe them as humbugs, so I forbear. But never have I listened to such humbuggery as I have today.
I may be accused of indulging in escapades and adventures during a long experience and I have witnessed scenes in this House far more serious than occurred yesterday—[An HON. MEMBER: "Such as?"] I have witnessed scenes when hon. Members were expelled from the House, even carried from the House.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Hon. Members opposite always manage to stagger out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House wishes to hear the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shinwell: I am grateful for all contributions received.
But when those incidents occurred, they at any rate were in a just cause, were fortified by logic and were upholding the dignity of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] But what dignity did we experience yesterday?
I am well aware of the traditions in the House and of the procedure in debates in which one must not refer unduly to events in the recent past. But I was here yesterday when the Chairman of Committees was in the Chair and witnessed the behaviour of some hon. Members opposite. I do not refer to all of them. There are some decent Members on the other side. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] The behaviour of some hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and, indeed, some right hon. Gentlemen, when the Chairman of Committees was trying to uphold the dignity of the House, was almost beyond description.
There was a time when I thought that the right hon. Gentleman who occupied the Chair would adjourn the House to enable Mr. Speaker to attend to name some of the offenders. But he exercised a restraint admirable in character and consistent with the function and duties of a chairman.
I sat here listening to it all and had to restrain myself. I understand that later in the proceedings the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) was throwing missiles about. I suppose that that is what one would expect from the Shadow Minister of Defence.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is within the recollection of some hon. Members that the right hon. Gentleman is about the only hon. Member here who has ever actually struck someone in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a point of history, not a point of order.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): On a further point of order. Could it be that the actual Minister of Defence has no missiles, real or otherwise?

Mr. Speaker: Points of order should be real points of order.

Mr. Shinwell: I have the inestimable advantage of never listening to anything which I do not want to hear.
However, since the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) has referred to an incident which occurred many years ago, perhaps I may be allowed to remind the House about it. Strangely enough, it happened on this very spot. The hon. Member who occupied this seat in the House in those days was an hon. and gallant Gentleman who was an ex-heavyweight champion of the Royal Navy.
There was no question of procedure. We were not discussing boundaries. I was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, in my harmless and even innocuous fashion, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman told me to go back to Poland. I had never been in the place. My first visit to Poland occurred two or three years ago on behalf of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. That was the first time that I visited the place, and I did not like it, either. I am not surprised that my forebears left the place more than 100 years ago.
I heard that offensive remark and at first paid no attention to it. I had no intention of taking action by word or deed. However, the then hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston, Mr. John McGovern, who has now, unhappily, passed away, raised a point of order, and I was thereby involved. He asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman to apologise, and he refused. By the way, he was a Tory and one of the products of Eton. So I asked him to come outside, and he would not. I must confess that I did not know then that he had been the heavyweight champion of the Navy. If I had known, I would never have gone near him. I only learned that afterwards, but he suffered a little.
I may say, out of respect for the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has now retired from the House, that he poured coals of fire on my head later by complimenting me on a speech that I made on the subject of colonial development. I was greatly embarrassed by the knowledge and consciousness of committing an act which I would rather not have done.
What is it that we are discussing this afternoon? It boils down to a very simple issue. The Government want to get a Bill through the House. The Opposition want to prevent them getting the Bill. So there is a conflict. Has that never happened before in the House? I have


been involved in any number of guillotine Motions, either on one side or the other. There is no reason why we should lose our tempers because of that.
What I object to more than anything else is the posture, the attitude and the behaviour of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone. Notice his language. I do not refer to that which he used against my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. We can pass that off. I refer to the language that he used this afternoon. He said to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, "You must do this." He said to the Government, "You must do that." Who does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think he is?
I recognise his ability. He knows that I do. I have referred to it more than once. But he lacks the quality of decency, and also the quality of compassion. It is a great pity. I would advise the Leader of the Opposition to take great care with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to be cautious of him. He may not be the kind of person to have alongside one in any crisis or emergency. He may be after the job of the Leader of the Opposition. After all, let us not forget that he left the other place. Why? He did very well there. It was because he hoped to become the Leader of his party.
This is the simple point. The Government want to get their Bill. I am not concerned about the merits of the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall tell the House why. I shall be leaving this place during the course of the next 12 or 18 months. I shall be sorry to depart from this assembly. It will be a severe wrench. However, I may not be very far away—one never knows—if only to keep an eye on the Tory Party. That is the reason why I say that I am not concerned about the merits of the Bill.
Whether there is merit or lack of merit in the Government's proposed legislation, the Opposition must understand that they are only the Opposition and not the Government—

Hon. Members: Must?

Mr. Manuel: Yes, "must".

Mr. Shinwell: I say this to the Leader of the Opposition—and I am not against

him personally, although on the other side of the fence politically. He must recognise the inescapable fact that he is only Leader of the Opposition. As Leader of the Opposition he has to put up with a great deal, so he must put up with the decision of the Government to get the Bill—

Mr. Peter Emery: By cheating.

Mr. Shinwell: From past experiences of innumerable occasions when a Guillotine as had to be applied, I suggest that the best thing for the Opposition is to argue rationally with all the knowledge, ability and experience they possess, in an attempt to convince the Government that they are wrong. If they fail, I ask them, as gentlemen, to act reasonably and decently and not make fools of themselves, thereby destroying the dignity of the House of Commons.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) use the word "cheaters." Is that a Parliamentary term?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): It has been held that a word must be a personal reference before it becomes unparliamentary and requires to be withdrawn.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The House of Commons always enjoys listening to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), although I must say that I have never imagined him in his self-cast rôle of the elderly lady with her knitting sitting at the foot of the guillotine enjoying every moment of the proceedings.
There was only one point on which I part company with him. I hope that it can be said to my credit at least, if nothing else can, that I am no great lover of the Conservative Party and what it stands for. There have also been many occasions on which I have disagreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), but I have a very great respect for the way in which he has personally stood for what he believes is right, particularly in racial matters, where there are some very dangerous currents in this country and


where there are very great difficulties not only in his own party but outside it. He has had the courage to make his views known.
I am delighted also that I have seated next door to me one who in the Birmingham, Ladywood by-election attacked, violently and successfully, a Fascist candidate to whom he, I believe rightly, referred to as an "Enoch Powell" candidate. I therefore believe that the remarks of the right hon. Member for Easington relating to the right hon. and learned Gentleman were not of the standard which the right hon. Member for Easing-ton himself would wish to apply in this House.
I hope that I take the Leader of the House with me when I say that he not only wishes to carry his Motion tonight but wishes to carry it by the genuine conviction of those hon. Members sitting behind him; voting not merely because the Whips are on but because they are genuinely convinced of the merits of the case. I am sure that that would be his wish. That being my belief, there are three points, and three points only, that I wish to make.
First, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that this is a Bill, whatever its merits, of constitutional importance; and that we are very careful in this House, unless there is good reason for it, about a Guillotine on matters of constitutional importance. He cited certain cases where a previous Conservative Government had introduced the Guillotine—Christmas Adjournment, Indian pensions, National Health Insurance, and other things—but I am sure that with the best will in the world he would not suggest that those items, however important, were of constitutional importance. But even were the right hon. Gentleman able to provide such examples, I must confess that when I find a Labour Government justifying their present actions by reference to past Tory precedents, I realise that they are scraping the barrel. I therefore want to put the following point to him.
This is a Bill of constitutional importance. It is not the only Bill of constitutional importance which we have recently discussed. It may possibly be within the recollection of the Leader of the House that we were recently discuss-

ing a Parliament (No. 2) Bill for the reform of another place. We had a total of 14 days on that Bill, a total of 95 hours, and there was no question of a Guillotine—none at all. Indeed, there were even two days provided for Second Reading.
On the other hand, we are now discussing a Bill not merely to affect the character of this House but to deal with the particular rights of the electorate. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me there: that is what is in the Bill. Now, after one day devoted to Second Reading and one day spent in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman moves a guillotine Motion—

Mr. Molloy: rose—

Mr. Thorpe: I will give way in a moment, but I want to finish with this point.
What I want to know is this. If the right hon. Gentleman was so disinclined to have a Guillotine for the reform of another place, why has he overcome those scruples and now has no difficulty at all in proposing a Guillotine in respect of a Measure that affects the voting system to this House? Is it merely that he could not carry a majority of his own colleagues? If that is the case, I am sure that he would agree that the difference in motive is not what one might call the highest. Or is it that he regards discussion of the reform of another place as being of far greater Parliamentary significance and occupying a far higher priority in our time table than the distribution of seats in respect of election to this House?
It would be very interesting to know why he should treat the two Measures in such a different way. No doubt the Home Secretary will be able to elucidate. It is very strange that a Labour Government should be more anxious to provide time for a debate about another place than for a debate about the democratic rights of the electorate.

Mr. Molloy: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sure he will understand that I wished to make a small point a little earlier and before he reached his peroration.
The right hon. Gentleman was speaking of the grave importance of the debate which started in Committee yesterday,


but would he not also accept that when we are talking about the country's constitution responsibilities are to be shared by all parties? Was it not revealed quite clearly by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone that, in so far as he could not get his way, instructions went out to organise a filibuster irrespective of what happened and that the Government were therefore left with no alternative?

Mr. Thorpe: Quite frankly, I am not concerned with the technical considerations on either side. I am concerned only with the terms of the Motion now before the House, so I hope I may be excused from following the hon. Gentleman up that avenue. All I am concerned about is the difference in treatment. There was compunction shown in the debate about another place, whereas there is no compunction at all about introducing a timetable Motion in regard to a matter which I consider to be constitutionally of greater importance. That is the issue. And hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are entitled to a reply from their own Front Bench, because I am satisfied that when they vote they will wish to do so out of intellectual conviction and not because the Whips are on.
My second point relates to the circumstances in which the announcement was made. The Home Secretary moved to report Progress. I must be excused if I do not quote him verbatim, because the OFFICIAL REPORT for that hour of the night is not yet available, but I think that it is right to say that he asked the Committee to agree to his Motion because of the progress that had been made. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this timetable Motion was not something that had been adopted lightly but had been discussed, so I must assume that the Home Secretary was privy to that decision; that he knew there was to be a timetable Motion.
What happened? The Home Secretary asked the Committee to agree to report Progress because of the progress that had been made, knowing full well that his real reason for wanting the Committee's agreement was that the Leader of the House might proceed to take time allotted to a private Member for an Adjournment debate—and who, as far as

I know, was never even consulted—to announce that guillotine Motion would be moved to deal with a matter of constitutional importance, which many had alleged was tantamount to gerrymandering. If ever there was a case of compounding a felony it was there.

Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman was not here.

Mr. Thorpe: Certainly I was here. If the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), instead of asking the same question three times, would ask it once, he would hear the answer. I was here.

Mr. Mendelson: We did not see the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Thorpe: In that case the shortsightedness of the hon. Member has my sympathy and that of the House.

Mr. Mendelson: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Thorpe.

Mr. Mendelson: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Thorpe: I suggest to the Home Secretary that with even his knowledge of the law he should know that those who obtain things by false pretences outside this House find themselves in considerable trouble. I ask the third question.

Mr. C. Pannell: And get a silly answer.

Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) believes in a self-inflicted echo. I ask whether the Home Secretary realises why many of us genuinely feel that there should be a full debate on this Measure? It is not merely because it is of constitutional importance; that is accepted. It is not merely because it breaches the spirit of Acts of Parliament which this House has passed, but, very much more important, it may even be illegal.
I am not allowed to go into the merits of that allegation at this stage. I merely make this point, which I think is relevant to discussion of this Motion. The obligations placed on the Home Secretary under the 1949 Act—I refer particularly to Section 2(5)—are mandatory. He


"shall" lay a report before Parliament, and he must do so
as soon as may be".
It is very interesting when one looks at the present Bill and at all those matters which are being repealed that there is no reference to any repeal of any part of that Act, still less of the obligation resting on the Home Secretary specifically to lay these reports before the House of Commons. That is why we believe that what the Government are doing may be illegal. It may be contrary not only to the spirit but to the practice of the legislation for which they themselves are responsible.

Mr. Callaghan: Test it.

Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman says "Test it". I am coming to that. If this timetable Motion goes through—I hope in the interests of Parliament it does not—we should challenge this Government on the precedent of 29th June, 1950, to refer that specific matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. [Laughter.]
I am hardly surprised at the mirth at the suggestion that legislation which this House passed should be upheld. The mirth with which it has been received is wholly consistent with the manner in which this Bill has been approached by the Government. Had the right hon. Gentleman sought specifically to repeal those Sections of that Act he could justly say, "We are changing the law", but he has not done that. There is no reference to the mandatory obligation which this House and Parliament as a whole has placed upon him. Therefore he is in breach of an Act of Parliament which this House, indeed his own party, passed when they were the Government.
That is why we believe that on both—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman shows great confidence. I think he would take it from me that he has many qualities, but not that of being a legal expert. I do not profess to be a great expert in the law, but I profess to have made my living at it. I have never come to the Dispatch Box and, ignoring the due process of trial, announced that two men who had committed a murder had been arrested that morning. That is why I suggest to the Home Secretary that he might care to take the advice of the Attorney-General. If he has done so already, he should take it again on

this point, because the Attorney-General is a very experienced and respected lawyer. The right hon. Gentleman may also care to consider a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which this House decided to make in connection with a privilege matter and the disqualification of an hon. Member.
I hope that hon. and right hon. Members opposite who vote tonight will do so out of real conviction that they are adding lustre to Parliamentary reform and that they can stand up and be proud members of the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, and that so far as concerns gerrymandering their conscience is clear.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: The main point of the speech of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) can be disposed of by saying that if he felt so strongly about the legal aspect of the matter he should have attended the debates we have had on this subject. It is an extraordinary state of affairs—quite unprecedented as far as I recall—that a right hon. Gentleman should wait until a guillotine Motion has been moved before putting such weighty considerations before the House. We have had a Second Reading of the Bill and the debate on the Motion introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). If the right hon. Member for Devon, North felt so deeply on these legal questions he had plenty of opportunity to raise them then.
I want to deal with some remarks made primarily by the Leader of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] In view of the fact that he made some very fierce remarks last night and some of his supporters prevented hon. Members replying to him on that occasion, he might at least have done the courtesy to the House of remaining for this important debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] The Leader of the Opposition, who said that this was so important a matter, has run away today. The Leader of the Opposition dared to refer—and some of us thought it most indecent—to my predecessor as the Member for Ebbw Vale. Hon. Members opposite vilified him in his lifetime. They might at least spare us the obscenity of their compliments to him after he is dead.
The Leader of the Opposition should have looked up the facts, precisely on this question of boundary reports. The last time the Boundary Commission reported to the House—in 1954—on major boundary changes my predecessor for Ebbw Vale intervened in the debate. He spoke against the proposals which were being made by the Government at that time and went into the Lobby on about half a dozen occasions against the boundary proposals of the Conservative Administration. Who was the Lords Commissioner helping to shuffle through those hon. Members on a three-line Whip to vote for measures under the Boundary Commission recommendations? Of course, he was the present Leader of the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—so he ought to have known.
As I tried to say last night, we all know that the Leader of the Opposition was not primarily concerned with the merits of the issue. The right hon. Gentleman, in view of his strenuous exertions in this manner, often reminds me of Pope Pius IX, the Risorgimento Pope. whom some people thought might become the leader of the Movement, Pope Pius said, "What? They want to make a Napoleon of me, who am only a poor country parson".
That is the stature of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who does not even dare to attend this important debate. I would much have preferred to have said it to his face than behind his back.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Which face?

Mr. Foot: Yes, I agree. We have to decide which of his faces. However, I would much rather say it to both faces. The political epitaph of the right hon. Gentleman will be, "Once a Chief Whip, always a Chief Whip".
We all know that the right hon. Gentleman did not appreciate, perhaps, what he was doing in his speech last night when he referred to Ulster and Rhodesia. Some of us have thought that his failure to refer in the past to these matters, where real questions of civil liberty are involved, was due to mere political cowardice, but we see now that it is due also to a complete lack of political imagination. In Ulster, after 40

years of Tory rule, people have had to come on to the streets to fight for civil rights. They have had to bring their country to the verge of civil war to get local boundaries changed there. Yet the right hon. Gentleman dares to compare that situation with this Measure. So in Rhodesia, on which issue he has been so craven. If he was interested in Rhodesia, one might have thought that he would have used his voice in trying to deal with some of his hon. Friends who have spent all these months trafficking with treason.
We all know why the Opposition have got into such a state on the whole of this matter. It is nothing to do with the question of the Report of the Boundary Commission. It is due to the difficult situation in which the right hon. Gentleman is placed—the whole complication about his leadership. We all know what happened a few years ago when the Tories made the biggest mistake of their lives. When they had to choose a new captain, they put Jonah at the helm. All the time since then they have been looking around for some convenient whale to come around and relieve them of him.
My advice to hon. Gentlemen opposite—I do not expect they will always take my advice—is to tip him overboard. It would cause scarcely a ripple on the political surface. Maybe they will not take my advice. I shall not worry either, because I say this to the right hon. Gentleman and to hon. Members opposite. Particularly in view of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman behaved last night—the right hon. and learned Gentleman for St. Marylebone does these synthetic explosions far better than the Leader of the Opposition—let them leave him where he is. From our point of view he is a gift from the gods.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: The time I have in which to sum up is short. Therefore, I will not on this occasion reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), which were as inaccurate as they were irrelevant to this discussion. I can sum up—[Interruption.] I have only a short time and if I cannot make my speech I am afraid the Home Secretary will lose part of his time.
I can sum up briefly what is involved, because the issue is narrow, though the implications are immense. A debate on


a guillotine Motion is always very tightly drawn. The issue is merely whether the debates on the Bill should or should not be curtailed. We cannot discuss the merits of the Bill, though there has been some attempt to do so once or twice, but the nature of the Bill and the circumstances of its introduction are wholly relevant to the question whether discussion should be curtailed.
The Bill raises issues of great constitutional moment. Therefore, this is no conventional guillotine debate. We know these guillotine debates; we know how the usual arguments are bandied to and fro across the Floor of the House according to which side of the House one is sitting on. This is not one of those debates, because the Bill involves a very big constitutional issue.
We have not yet had from the Government any reason why debates should be curtailed. The Leader of the House said that it was necessary, but by declaring it to be necessary lie does not show it to be necessary. Therefore, the Home Secretary must explain to the House why the Committee stage of the Bill must end on 14th July. Why? There is no question here of disrupting the Government's programme. There is no question here, so far as I can see, of anything other than the Government's determination to rise for the Summer Recess on 25th July. Is there any other reason? This is a short Bill. The discussion would not have taken more than a few days in Committee. The Government, rather than giving those few days in Committee, are curtailing discussion on a Bill of the greatest possible importance.
It underlines the frivolity and cynicism with which the Home Secretary and others have approached the Bill that they should prefer to curtail discussion rather than wait a few more days before the summer holidays begin. They must recognise that what is involved here is not merely a constitutional issue but the issue of the whole good faith of the Government in this matter. They may argue that this is not a serious matter. Some hon. Members opposite appear almost to think that.
But nothing could be more serious than the distribution of Parliamentary seats in Britain, for surely an unbiased basis for a General Election is essential to democracy. That is why we have a Boundary Commission. That is why the

views of an impartial Boundary Commission should not be departed from without full scrutiny and thorough argument.
Experience has led me in the last few years to believe that the integrity of our political system is the most precious of assets we have. I tried on many occasions when I was Colonial Secretary to develop for newly independent countries constitutions that could not be subverted. I realised then how a constitution could grow only by centuries of usage and how it can be so easily subverted by a short, sharp act of folly.
We have something here that we must not jeopardise, but I fear that the Government are doing so. Our system of government is unique, in that it gives almost unfettered power to the Government of the day, power that they may achieve by a very small majority of votes indeed at an election. Ours is a system of dictatorship of the majority party. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members to listen closely to what I am saying, because it comes from a certain amount of study of and thought about these problems.
We have a system whereby a narrowly contested election may give to a party enormous and virtually unfettered power. I think that this is the right system, and it suits our country, though it may not suit others. It is an acceptable system only if the electoral system remains un-biased and if the Government of the day cannot twist it at any time to their advantage. This is the seriousness of the issue.
What is in issue is not so much the honour and the standing of the Government themselves, because I believe that much of this has been forfeited already by the introduction of the Bill. What is in issue, without a shadow of doubt, is the honour and the standing of Parliament. Let us not under-estimate the cynicism about Parliament which has prevailed in Britain in recent years. We know perfectly well the cynicism that abounds in the Press, in speeches. on television, and amongst our constituents—[Interruption.]—and it is not helped by interruption. We know the cynicism which abounds and I am sure that we recognise—we must recognise—how dangerous this is to our whole democratic process.
What will be the effect on the public of the Government's Motion today? The public in its attitude to Parliament divides itself into two sections. There are those who say, "Members of Parliament spend most of their time engaged in bickering and party manoeuvre, while the national interest slips by". There are many who say that, and those who do will feel confirmed in their judgment by what is happening here today. There are many others—the wiser ones, I believe—who still believe that Parliament, despite its many acknowledged faults, is a great institution. Those who still believe that will be saddened and shocked by what is happening. They will see a Government whose honour is publicly challenged trying to curtail discussion of the issues in which their honour is involved. They will see issues of great national moment submerged by the manipulation of a party vote.
Parliament is more important than any party or any Member of Parliament. Neither Parliament nor democracy can survive unless those who are in power for the time being are seen to be wielding their power honourably. If the Government persist in their policy on this Bill, they will write on the pages of history an indelible blot of shame.

5.22 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): If the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was not aware of it before this afternoon, he must know know that he has given deep offence to this side by the description which he applied last night, perhaps in the heat of the moment, to my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. He did it knowing that my right hon. Friend would not be able to answer. The trouble with the right hon. and learned Gentlemen is not that he is a bad man—he is not—hut that he is a political schizophrenic. This afternoon, he wound up his speech by saying that, if he had been properly approached, he would have apologised, but as he had not been properly approached he would repeat the offensive remark.
Yesterday, we had the charlatan. Today, we had the attempted statesman. It did not come off. The right hon. Gentleman will not receive the sympathy of the House—he must understand this,

and I am sure that he does, as an old Parliamentarian—until he has made amends to my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. When he makes those amends, his opinions will be taken, as they usually are, at their face value, and they are usually worth quite a lot. I, therefore, suggest to him that he should take an early opportunity to make amends in the way that he knows.
In this afternoon's debate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have spoken of their reasons for not being willing to accept the guillotine Motion. One figure has been strangely absent, not just the Leader of the Opposition.[An HON. MEMBER: "The Prime Minister."] The Prime Minister, too, has been absent, but where is the "grandaddy" of us all, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod)? Where is the Member who has moved more guillotine Motions than any other, living or dead? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman turn up? Is it because he fears that he has given too many hostages to fortune, and, not only that, he has in the past even put two Bills in one guillotine Motion? There is productivity. The right hon. Gentleman did not come because he knows that he could have been challenged on a great many of the Motions and statements which he has made in the past. [Interruption.] We are not discussing the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is out of date. We are discussing the Motion on the Order Paper.

Sir John Langford-Holt: What were the two Bills?

Mr. Callaghan: To the best of my recollection, they were a Transport Bill and a Scottish Housing Bill. That was one occasion. As for the second occasion, I do not recall at the moment; the hon. Gentleman can go and look it up for himself. [Interruption.] I know that the right hon. Gentleman got some stick today, but that was only in payment for what the Opposition did last night. It is now quits.
Lord Butler laid down certain conditions for a guillotine Motion. I shall repeat them because I think that they will appeal to hon. Members opposite. The first condition, he said, was: "Can we get the business by agreement?". We have had that discussion today. The


answer is, "No, we cannot." The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone was pretty blunt about it. He said, "Unless you make substantial concessions to us"—in other words, unless it is the Opposition's Bill and not the Government's—"we do not propose to give it to you". That is clear enough. We understand where we are when he says it.
The Motion is brought in under Standing Order No. 43A. Under that Standing Order the first duty laid upon the Government is to make a formal approach to the Opposition and say to them, "Can we get the Bill by agreement?". The answer, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated, was "No." [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the hurry?"] I am dealing with the first of Lord Butler's conditions—Can we get the business by agreement? The answer is that we cannot. Therefore, the first condition for introducing a guillotine Motion is satisfied.
Last night, we had an interesting discussion. The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) took us on a tour of his roads. He discussed the employment situation in his constituency. He talked to us about the relations between his constituency and others in Devon. I thought it a most interesting holiday visit, but it had nothing whatever to do with the subject under discussion. I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the fact that the speeches were short makes them no less irrelevant on that account. It is no more valuable in terms of proving one's point to have 50 irrelevant speeches of ten minutes each than to have five irrelevant speeches of 100 minutes each. A lot of the speeches last night had nothing to do with the subject which we were discussing. They were just on the right side of the bounds of order. Hon. Members opposite were determined to make such speeches because they did not intend to give us the Bill. They know that. We understand it. We intend to take the appropriate action in answer. That has always been understood, no matter who spoke from this Front Bench, and it is understood now.
The Government have what the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) called the dictatorship of a temporary

majority. Of course they have, and they use their majority to ensure that their business goes through. It may be an odd concept when the Tories are in opposition. They may think that we ought not to do it and think it odd that we propose to govern in the same way as they governed. We intend to get our Bill.
The second condition which Lord Butler laid down was: "Is there adequate time for discussion?" Let us look at that. By the time we finish the Bill there will have been 30 hours of discussion. It contains three operative Clauses. With one of them the Opposition are in wholehearted agreement. The controversy is related to two Clauses, and two only, covering about three octavo pages of the Bill.
There is nothing technical about it. It is not as though we are having difficult discussions on abstruse issues. The Clauses raise two simple issues. First, should the redistribution go on or not? Second, should a small number of very large constituencies be broken up? Those are the only two issues. We shall have 30 hours in which to discuss whether those two questions should be answered "Yes" or "No". The right hon. Member for Barnet referred to growing cynicism among the public. They will think that we are a pretty poor lot if the Opposition cannot make up their mind in 30 hours on two subjects of that magnitude.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party made his usual sneering references to my lack of knowledge of the law. I admit that I did not have his good fortune to go to Eton. I did not have his good fortunte to go to Trinity College. I did not have his good fortune to be president of the Oxford Union. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman on this subject before. The right hon. Gentleman adopts an upper class arrogance that only somebody who went to Eton and Oxford can adopt.
The right hon. Gentleman told me that he did not want the Guillotine justified by reference to what Tory Governments had done on constitutional issues. Very well. I will not do anything of the sort; I will justify it by reference to what Liberal Governments did. Let us look at what the Liberal Governments did against the Conservatives; let us look at


what the right hon. Gentleman calls constitutional Bills within the broadest meaning of the term. The Government of Ireland Bill, 1893—guillotined by the Liberal Government. Was not that a constitutional issue? The Plural Voting Bill, 1906—guillotined by the Liberal Government. A Bill dealing with the relations of the two Houses and the duration of Parliament—guillotined by the Liberal Government. The Parliament Bill of 1911—guillotined by the Liberal Government. Another Plural Voting Bill in 1914—guillotined by the Liberal Government. Two Government of Ireland Bills in 1912 and 1914, in successive Sessions, guillotined by the Liberal Government.

Mr. Thorpe: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I am not attacking the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way the right hon. Gentleman must take his seat.

Mr. Thorpe: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am defending the record of the last Liberal Government on these things. I think that they were probably right to introduce guillotine Motions at that time. The right hon. Gentleman should not complain about it and should not so far forget the good his ancestors did by attacking us when we try to repeat it now. So, I answer both the second criterion of Lord Butler and the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman by the simple facts of the situation.
The third question that was posed by Lord Butler was, is the guillotine essential? This is a question that I should certainly try to answer. We think that it is essential for a number of reasons.

An Hon. Member: The holidays.

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that it is not basically that. One of the basic reasons why I think that it is important that the Bill should go through is that it is very important for the G.L.C. elections for the candidates who are being selected to know where they stand on this issue. They must know whether they are likely to be selected on the old or new basis. The Bill deals with about 92 constituencies,

and about 92 seats in the case of the G.L.C., and for this reason it is important that we should remove doubts from the issue as soon as possible.
The other essence of the matter is that the constituency parties also wish to know where they are on these matters. It is important that we should remove doubt. In my view—and it is the Government's view—the Guillotine is essential for this purpose.

Mr. Emery: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I have only three minutes left.
I have now dealt with all three of Lord Butler's criteria. He took the view that there was much to be said in favour of a Guillotine Motion when one had a short, non-technical; it is a simple Bill that matches that description. It is short and non-technical; it is a simple Bill that could clearly be debated and decided within the limit of 30 hours, unless the Opposition were determined to ensure that we could not get it, and they have said that they are determined that we shall not get it. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has told us in the country that we shall not get it. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) told us that the Opposition would use every political means at their disposal to ensure that we did not get it. We understand their position. Probably in their place we would do the same. If they were in our place they would certainly make sure that they got their Bill, and that is exactly what we shall do.
I come to the one other point that has been made, which is that we cannot accept that a minority group can veto a Bill of this sort. There have been suggestions by some newspapers encouraging another place to mutilate the Bill. It would be a very serious matter if the Tory majority in the House of Lords did not recognise that the Bill deals essentially with the constitution of the House of Commons.
It would be quite simple, although it would involve the expenditure of a great deal of Parliamentary time, for the Orders to be laid. I say to the right hon. Member for Devon, North that there would be no difficulty in laying them. Having laid them, I could not necessarily command the support of all hon. Gentlemen


in voting for them. They would have to decide for themselves.
The idea of one man, one vote, one value is absurd when I hear it in the mouth of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Conservatives won the General Election in 1951 on a minority of votes. They had a majority of 26. How much did we hear then about the sanctity of one man, one vote, one value? Right hon. and hon. Members opposite adopt it when convenient, and they will drop it as soon as it ceases to be convenient. We are not taken in by that synthetic indignation, or even the synthetic applause for the Leader of the Opposition last night. There has been nothing like the fluttering of order papers we saw last night since Nevile Chamberlain returned from Munich.

Division No. 314.]
AYES
[5.38 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Alldritt, Walter
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Allen, Scholefield
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Archer, Peter
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamling, William


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Delargy, Hugh
Harper, Joseph


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dell, Edmund
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dempsey, James
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dewar, Donald
Haseldine, Norman


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hattersley, Roy


Barnes, Michael
Dickens, James
Hazell, Bert


Barnett, Joel
Dobson, Ray
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Baxter, William
Doig, Peter
Heffer, Eric S.


Bence, Cyril
Driberg, Tom
Henig, Stanley


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dunn, James A.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunnett, Jack
Hilton, W. S.


Binns, John
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hooley, Frank


Bishop, E. S.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Blackburn, F.
Eadie, Alex
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edelman, Maurice
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Howie, W.


Boston, Terence
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Ellis, John
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Boyden, James
English, Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bradley, Tom
Ennals, David
Hynd, John


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Ensor, David
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Brooks, Edwin
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'sc &amp; Spenb'gh)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Fernyhough, E.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Finch, Harold
Jeger, George (Goole)


Buchan, Norman
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Foley, Maurice
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Forrester, John
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Carmichael, Neil
Fowler, Gerry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Chapman, Donald
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Coleman, Donald
Gardner, Tony
Judd, Frank


Concannon, J. D.
Garrett, W. E.
Kelley, Richard


Conlan, Bernard
Ginsburg, David
Kenyon, Clifford


Crartdock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Crawshaw, Richard
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Cronin, John
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lawson, George


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gregory, Arnold
Leadbitter, Ted

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone spoke about a failure to disclose our intentions. They said that we were concealing the truth, that our integrity was in question, and that there was a question of our honour. They seem to have forgotten Suez. Then there was a cold, calculated, frigid deception of the House that went on day after day. Neither I nor my colleagues are willing to take lessons in honour and honesty from a Front Bench that was then part of that Government, nor are we prepared to listen to the strictures of the Leader of the Opposition, who whipped them all into the Lobby then in support of a policy of trickery, deceit and deception.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 246.

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Newens, Stan
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
Silverman, Julius


Lee, John (Reading)
Oakes, Gordon
Skeffington, Arthur


Lestor, Miss Joan
Ogden, Eric
Slater, Joseph


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
O'Malley, Brian
Small, William


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Oram, Albert E.
Snow, Julian


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Orme, Stanley
Spriggs, Leslie


Lipton, Marcus
Owen, Dr. David (Plymoutn, S'tn)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.


Lomas, Kenneth
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Loughlin, Charles
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Storehouse, Rt, Hn. John


Luard, Evan
Palmer, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Park, Trevor
Symonds, J. B.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Taverne, Dick


McCann, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


MacColl, James
Pavitt, Laurence
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


MacDermot, Niall
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Thornton, Ernest


Macdonald, A. H.
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Tinn, James


McGuire, Michael
Pentland, Norman
Tomney, Frank


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, s.)
Tuck, Raphael


Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Mackie, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Varley, Eric G.


Mackintosh, John P.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Maclennan, Robert
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Price, William (Rugby)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Probert, Arthur
Wallace, George


Marion, Peter (Preston. S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Randall, Harry
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rankin, John
Weitzman, David


Manuel, Archie
Rees, Merlyn
Wellbeloved, James


Mapp, Charles
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Marks, Kenneth
Richard, Ivor
Whitaker, Ben


Marquand, David
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Whitlock, William


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mayhew, Christopher
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mendelson, John
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Millan, Bruce
Roebuck, Roy
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Molloy, William
Rowlands, E.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Moonman, Eric
Ryan, John
Winnick, David


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Woof, Robert


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sheldon, Robert
Wyatt, Woodrow


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.



Moyle, Roland
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Murray, Albert
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Neal, Harold
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Mr. Neil McBride.



Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bryan, Paul
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Doughty, Charles


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Astor, John
Bullus, Sir Eric
Drayson, G. B.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Burden, F. A.
Eden, Sir John


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Emery, Peter


Balniel, Lord
Carlisle, Mark
Errington, Sir Eric


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)


Batsford, Brian
Channon, H. P. G.
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred


Bell, Ronald
Chataway, Christopher
Eyre, Reginald


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Farr, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Clark, Henry
Fisher, Nigel


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Clegg, Walter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Biffen, John
Cooke, Robert
Fortescue, Tim


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Foster, Sir John


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Corfield, F. V.
FraseT, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Black, Sir Cyril
Costain. A. P.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Blaker, Peter
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gibson-Watt, David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Body, Richard
Crowder, F. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Glover, Sir Douglas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Currie, G. B. H.
Glyn, Sir Richard


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Dalkeith, Earl of
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Braine, Bernard
Dance, James
Goodhart, Philip


Brewis, John
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Goodhew, Victor


Brinton, Sir Tatton
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gower, Raymond


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Dean, Paul
Grant, Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gresham Cooke, R.

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Ridsdale, Julian


Hall, John (Wycombe)
McMaster, Stanley
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Royle, Anthony


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maddan, Martin
Russell, Sir Ronald


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maginnis, John E.
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marten, Neil
Scott, Nicholas


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maude, Angus
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hastings, Stephen
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Sharples, Richard


Hawkins, Paul
Mawby, Ray
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hay, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Silvester, Frederick


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sinclair, Sir George


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Heseltine, Michael
Monro, Hector
Speed, Keith


Higgins, Terence L.
Montgomery, Fergus
Stainton, Keith


Hill, J. E. B.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stodart, Anthony


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tapsell, Peter


Holland, Philip
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hordern, Peter
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Hornby, Richard
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Temple, John M.


Hunt, John
Neave, Airey
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Tilney, John


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Nott, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Onslow, Cranley
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Waddington, David


Jopling, Michael
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)




Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Walters, Dennis


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pardoe, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Kershaw, Anthony
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Weatherill, Bernard


Kimball, Marcus
Peel, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Percival, Ian
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Kitson, Timothy
Peyton, Jonn
Wiggin, A. W.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Lambton, Viscount
Pink, R. Bonner
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lane, David
Pounder, Rafton
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lawler, Wallace
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Prior, J. M. L.
Woodnutt, Mark


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pym, Francis
Worsley, Marcus


Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wright, Esmond


Longden, Gilbert
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Younger, Hn. George


Lubbock, Eric
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter



McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rees-Davies, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacArthur, Ian
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Jasper More.

Resolved,
That pursuant to Standing Order No. 43A (Allocation of time to Bills) the Committee on the Bill shall report the Bill on or before Monday 14th July and as respects proceedings in that Committee the Business Committee shall make recommendations to the House.

Orders of the Day — FAMILY LAW REFORM BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: As is my wont, I have posted my selection of Amendments. The first selected is Amendment No. 1.

Clause 8

CONSENT BY PERSONS OVER 16 TO SURGICAL, MEDICAL AND DENTAL TREATMENT

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 8, line 20, at beginning insert:
Except in the case of a minor in statu pupillari and resident during term time for not less than half the year at an educational establishment.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting this Amendment, because the subject was hardly ventilated during previous stages of the Bill. On Second Reading, the Attorney-General disposed of it in four and a half lines of HANSARD, and in Committee in another place and in the Commons the Clause was moved formally.
Before deploying my case, may I give the House a short background to it? In December, last year, the medical officer of one of our great schools wrote to me in a state of some anxiety about the implications for school doctors of the Latey Committee's recommendation that the age of consent to medical treatment should be reduced to 16. He raised a number of questions both on his own behalf and more generally as a member of the Association of Medical Officers of Schools.
His main anxieties arise from the probability that the right of a 16-year-old to consent, or withhold consent, to diagnosis and treatment, for all practical purposes will carry with it the right to professional and ethical secrecy, in other words, to his physician's silence about any disease or treatment from which the 16-years-old may be suffering
This distinguished doctor was worried, as well he might be, about the position of school physicians if a 16-year-old student were able to forbid the disclosure, for example, to parents or housemasters, that he was suffering from what might be a serious disease. When I received this communication, I discussed the problem with a number of schoolmasters and parents of children at boarding schools, not all of them public schools—on the contrary, they included people with interests in State-run boarding schools, industrial training establishments, charitable institutions and religious foundations, and some of them with interests in military training. They all agreed that the doctor had raised a valid question requiring careful investigation.
I immediately wrote to the Home Secretary expressing my concern and asking for reconsideration. That was on 2nd December, 1968. The Under-Secretary at the Home Office, who was unable to answer my questions himself, passed my letter to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services. His Ministry at that time—I was tempted to say "as usual"—was in such a muddle that it lost it. When he did reply, the Minister of State said:
I am afraid that these papers were overlooked.
To cut a long story short, it was not until four months after I had written to inquire that in April of this year I finally received a reply. By then, the Latey Committee's recommendations had been included in the Bill which had completed its passage through another place and received its Second Reading here. At that time, I regret, I was in the United States and so unable to raise the issue on Second Reading.
The reply which I eventually received from the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, was not worth the paper on which it was written. I had made a serious inquiry and I received a reply four months late, without a date on it and containing at least one glaring spelling error. It was pompous, didactic and patronising of the school doctors and, characteristically, it missed the point which I am now glad to be able to explain.
When I passed the letter with the Government's explanation to the doctors concerned, his reaction was instructive. I


quote from a letter written by the medical officer of one of our largest schools. He said:
It was of course a complete surprise to me to know that this recommendation was already in the legislative sausage machine and indeed had received a Second Reading.
Perhaps the medical profession should have been more vigilant, but, as far as I can discover, the school doctors and their association were not consulted about this change in the law which will intimately affect their professional duty in the school. I do not know whether they have been consulted since; perhaps the Attorney-General will enlighten us. There followed a full meeting of the council of the school medical officers and it is because of their continuing concern that I have moved this Amendment at this very last moment.
The heart of the matter is the construction which is normally placed by the medical profession on the right to consent to treatment. Counsel for the Medical Defence Union, whose opinions have been sought on this point, say:
 It is widely accepted that the right to professional secrecy goes with the right to consent to treatment.
I am advised that in effect this means that any boy or girl deemed to be old enough to consent to medical treatment likewise has the right to forbid a doctor to divulge information to any third party about that treatment, or about the condition which makes such treatment necessary.
It is also true, as the Medical Defence Union's lawyers go on to say, that in any event it would be a breach of a doctor's ethical obligation to his patient to divulge such information even about 16-year-olds. But in practice, as hon. Members will know, school doctors, whether at boarding schools, military or industrial training establishments, or religious instituttions, almost invariably reserve the right to tell the parents, or the headmaster, any confidential information about a boy's medical condition, or his need for treatment, provided that one of two circumstances is met. The first is that in the doctor's opinion it is in the interests of the boy so to do, and the second is that it is necessary for the protection of the school, or of the other children at the school.
I cannot believe that any hon. Member would think that was wrong. Yet under Clause 8 it is, to say the least, an open question whether a student over the age 16 could not, by extension of the right to consent, forbid his school doctor to divulge that information about him. That is the opinion of those who have advised me on this matter and, from the documents which I have seen, it appears to be the view of the Medical Defence Union.
I want to cite a number of examples of what this could mean in practice. I stress that all are hypothetical, because I do not wish to start any hares in the public prints. All three are, however, cases which could easily exist.
The first is the possible case of a 16year-old boy at one of the G.L.C.'s state-run boarding schools. Supposing he contracts syphillis. Under present arrangements, the school doctor would consider what best to do. He might or he might not feel it right to tell the parents—they might be serving abroad. But almost certainly he would feel it his duty to inform the school headmaster. As the law now stands, the boy could not forbid this, not at least unless he was of age. But if the Bill is passed as it stands, it is possible—I put it no higher, although I am advised that it is probable—that a court could take the view that the boy would be within his rights to forbid such disclosure of his condition and the doctor could be in the wrong if he transgressed against the boy's prohibition.
The second example concerns a schoolgirl of 16 who becomes pregnant and who in a state of emotional distress is discovered by the school doctor to be seeking to procure an abortion. That girl's principal need is surely for her parents' affection and understanding and yet I can imagine circumstances where, out of shame or pride or embarrassment, she would not wish her parents to be told. She might hope, for example, that by seeking an abortion, legal or illegal, she could hide her predicament from her parents entirely. She might deem it best to tell them when it was all over.
At present the doctor discovering this fact would undoubtedly inform the girl's headmistress and her parents. In most cases at least no question of medical ethics would be allowed to stand in the way of his divulging that information.
But if Clause 8 stands as it is, the girl might in law be able to prohibit her doctor from making the disclosure which I believe the whole House, at least in most circumstances, would feel it was his duty to make. At the very least, the doctor's discretion so to do ought not to be compromised by Clause 8 as it stands.
The third of these hypothetical examples concerns a group of 16-year-olds who might have been hooked on drugs. The Attorney-General will not deny that this is a growing problem, particularly in London, and it would be unreasonable to suppose that addiction to cannabis can be or is excluded from our boarding schools. Supposing the school doctor finds out. If it were heroin, be would be under an obligation to inform the police. In the case of soft drugs such as cannabis, and as Clause 8 stands, I am advised that there is at least a possibility that the students concerned, if they were over the age of 16, could forbid the doctor to divulge the facts of their addiction either to their parents or to the school.
It is open to the Attorney-General to argue, as no doubt he will, that this in practice will not be the case. But there is to say the least, an important area of doubt and it concerns school doctors, their Association and the Medical Defence Union. There should not be any doubt when Parliament lays down this law, but here is an area of doubt which weighs heavily with the doctors. I want to quote from what one of them wrote to me the other day about the reply I had received on this point from Lady Serota. He said:
I do not think that this lady appreciates the position of schools like mine or of school officers like myself…
I hope that the Attorney-General will note this well:
Schools and school doctors will be put in an impossible position if a doctor cannot inform any member of the staff, including the headmaster, or the parents of the pupil concerned about any illness or injury to a child a boy of 16 years and over".
I ask the Attorney-General to note that, in many of our boarding schools, those of 16 years and over constitute more than two-fifths of the pupils. This doctor stresses that the school doctors will be in an impossible position if they cannot inform parents without the express consent of the boys.
Because of these anxieties, I am advised that school doctors will be forced, if the Amendment is not accepted, to take steps to protect themselves. I am informed that the Medical Defence Union has told them as follows:
In the case of boys and girls at school over the age of 16 it is the view of the Medical Defence Union that the school medical officer is entitled to reserve the right to inform the parents and/or headmaster or headmistress of confidential information about a boy or girl if he considers that it is within their own interest or necessary for the protection of other pupils that he should do so.
Strictly this would be a breach of the doctor's ethical obligation to his patient and if this causes concern to a school medical officer his position could be protected by the school governing body making it known both to the boys and their parents that it is a condition of their acceptance by the school that the school medical officer should have this unlimited right.
The prospect, as I understand it, is that if Clause 8 is allowed to stand without Amendment, the schools will have to put a clause into their prospectuses in future making this condition quite clear. They will have to stipulate that it is a condition of his acceptance that the school medical officer should have unlimited right to discuss the medical affairs of a pupil with the headmaster and parents.
It may be, since we are close to the end of the Bill, that they will have no other alternative. It may be the only way out. But in my view, it is wrong that the schools should have to do this because Parliament or the Government have not adequately thought out all the implications of the Clause. It is even more wrong if schools have to require this express reservation to be made by pupils and by parents for the purpose of evading the potential force of the law laid down by Parliament.
I cannot think that the Government really have given this matter adequate thought and on these grounds alone I urge the Amendment. But they are not the only grounds, and in conclusion I draw the Attorney-General's attention to a personal case of a school boy who happens to be my own son. I refer to him because he is typical, in no way special.
Not very long ago, my son broke his shoulder when playing rugby. When the shoulder was set, the knitting together of the bones was not at first sight successful. It became necessary to break that set and


to do it again. Once again it seemed that even with the re-setting he would have a disability in his shoulder for the rest of his life.
A choice then had to be made whether to break the set a third time, with all the pain and worry which goes with it for a youngster keen on athletics. It was a difficult decision. My son, as it happened, was just below the age that this Bill would cover. He was under the age of 16 but he might well have been just over 16.
That was for me one of the most agonising decisions. I knew that it would give immense pain. I knew that if the set were broken a third time there was still no guarantee that it would be right. But I had to decide. If the Bill is passed as it stands, it would be open to a boy of 16 to make that decision for himself, and I submit on the evidence that it would have been wholly wrong to lay that decision upon my son. It was necessary for his parents to take the responsibility and to make the decision on his behalf. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that this is what parents are for.
The Attorney-General will no doubt put a number of reasons why the Clause may stand as it is and why my anxieties are unfounded. I invite him to do so. I hope that he will be able to satisfy the school doctors and their association and many parents who are very much concerned about this. But I say to the Attorney-General that there is here at the very least an area of legal confusion. My Amendment is designed to limit and if possible to eliminate the doctors' confusion.
In her letter to me in which she summarised the Government's view about these points, Baroness Serota concluded with this sentence:
There is no reason why this new Clause should change the present position which it seems that those who approached you have misunderstood".
That was an imperceptive, not say an arrogant, statement. Those who have approached me have by no means misunderstood the Clause. They have considered it very carefully—more carefully, I suspect, than the Department of Health and Social Security. They have taken the best available legal advice from the Medical Defence Union. They have even taken steps, although I believe them to be

unsatisfactory, to protect themselves if the Government insist on keeping the Clause as it stands.
However, I have perhaps a little more confidence in the Attorney-General than they have. I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman with some confidence. It is true that the Government did not consult the school doctors. It is true that when I made my original submissions they lost my letter. It is true that neither in the other place nor in this House has there been any discussion of this point during the Committee stage. But there is still time. So I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will apply his quick and benevolent mind to the problem. Let him change my inadequate Amendment in any way he wishes, but let him not rush into law with a Clause, whose intentions I do not oppose but whose detailed application could cause confusion and even distress unless the Amendment or something like it is accepted, even at this final hour.

Mr. John Lee: I apologise to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) that I did not hear his opening remarks. He has raised a matter of some importance, although I am bound to say that I disagree with him almost entirely. Although he has put his case forward with a good deal of force and fear, I think that he has misunderstood what the Clause is about.
The hon. Gentleman points out—and it is an understandable apprehension—that there might be a certain amount of difficulty about the relationship of doctors to those who are in charge, in a disciplinary way, of an educational establishment in the medical care of the pupils in that establishment. The fallacy of that is simply this. Either the House takes the view that a person of 16 is mature enough to consent to medical treatment or it does not. Either we accept that 16 is a reasonable age for people to exercise this power themselves or we do not. It does not matter whether they are in an educational institution.
It may well be that many of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, who will be, in the nature of things, engaged in higher education and, therefore, may be better educated, are in a better position to weigh the pros and cons and understand the consequences of their actions in exercising the powers


which the Bill grants them rather than people who are not in educational institutions. In other words, it might be argued a little more plausibly that there is a case for having the Amendment the other way around.
6.15 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman's argument seemed to concern almost entirely the disclosure of the nature of illnesses. The Clause is concerned with the giving of consent to treatment, and so on. It is an entirely different matter. The hon. Gentleman went on to give some singularly inappropriate examples in support of his argument. To say that it is right to disclose to a third party facts about someone suffering from venereal disease or an unmarried person who is pregnant is a most extraordinary argument to use in support of an Amendment of this kind. Of all the conditions in which one would have thought confidentiality was most important, irrespective of the patient's age, it is just medical conditions of this kind.
It may well be that, with the growing maturity of young people and the growing permissiveness of society, these are embarrassing disciplinary problems in educational institutions. But it is most extraordinary to use this as an argument for making the medical officer a spy, although perhaps that puts it rather strongly, on behalf of those in charge of people in an educational institution. It would not give confidence to pupils who went to them in obviously embarrassing circumstances that what they disclosed would go no further than was necessary for medical purposes.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I will not comment on the hon. Gentleman's point about spies, which is nonsense, but would he address his mind to the point made by the Medical Defence Union which I quoted:
It is widely accepted that the right to professional secrecy goes with the right to consent to treatment"?
That is the legal point.

Mr. Lee: That may be so. Once we accept the concept that a person of a given age is likely to be mature enough to weigh up these matters, if we destroy confidentiality, not only shall we put them in a difficult position in a discipline-

ary way, which may be justified, but we may inhibit them from seeking treatment, which the most important aspect.
I am not entirely enamoured of the Clause. The age of 18 would possibly have been a better age. More people seem to become more mature year by year. These are weighty matters. The example of his son which the hon. Gentleman used is invalid for another reason. I imagine that any normal person would seek the assistance and advice of people older than themselves, perhaps their parents if they enjoyed a normal parental relationship. Therefore, when there is no delicacy in the situation, it is only reasonable to suppose that the pupil will be only too glad to lean on the shoulders of people older than themselves.
The hon. Gentleman has done a service by raising this matter because there are problems which need to be solved, but my main objection to this Amendment is that it is totally illogical to draw a vertical distinction between some people of 16 and other people of the same age. One could perhaps divide it in other ways, but not that way
.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will tell us what he thinks of certain letters issued on behalf of educational institutions purporting to grant to their medical officers the right to disclose information. This would seem to be to disregard the provisions of the Bill. I suspect that those disclaimers of all cautionary provisos would not have very much effect. I should have thought that they should not be encouraged, in any event, and I certainly have doubts whether, in the face of the provisions of the Bill—if unamended—they would have any validity.
Those are all the points that I wished to make. The hon. Member has raised an interesting point, but I do not think that the argument that he has adduced merits a change in the Bill.

Sir Lionel Heald: I would not venture to offer any opinion on the legal conundrum raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) but I hope that the learned Attorney-General will deal with it. With great respect to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) he did not meet my hon. Friend's difficulty. The hon. Member expressed his opinion


on moral and other matters but I understand that my hon. Friend is concerned with the difficulty which genuinely arises for organisations such as the Medical Defence Union which are uncertain of the legal situation. It may be that, as is so often the case, in a few moments the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give us, with the utmost clarity and certainty so that we can accept it without question, the answer to the point, but at the moment I am impressed by the case put forward by my hon. Friend, which until now does not seem to have been treated with the seriousness that it merits.
People are in difficulties over these legal problems. We have often come across such cases. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that it is most important that people should know where they stand. There may be a simpler explanation than that which my hon. Friend has given of the matter, but he is entitled to an answer.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I shall be brief. This is an important point, and as an ex-teacher I see a greater significance in it than does the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). He picked three important but nevertheless unique and exhaustive examples, but he touched on a set of consequences with which I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will deal.
First, I require to be convinced that the right to medical secrecy is in fact a corollary to the right of consent. Presuming that that is the position, will my right hon. and learned Friend dwell upon the consequences to which I have referred? In many cases of medical treatment it is important for the head teacher to know the facts, if only for the sake of the student concerned. This is true in some cases of medical treatment of the ears and eyes, and of other medical treatment which affects the emotional stability of students.
If the submission that the right to medical secrecy is a corollary of the right to consent is supported by evidence a grave situation might arise if the Clause omitted to take that fact into account. My right hon. and learned Friend will no doubt agree that a wider field has been opened up, and I hope that he will make clear whether the right to medical secrecy

is as firmly established as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has suggested.

Mr. John Lee: Accepting my hon. Friend's point that in certain circumstances it may be valuable, desirable or even necessary for certain information to be disclosed to a head teacher, is it not equally true that such information should be disclosed to officials of other institutions, and not merely educational institutions?

Mr. Leadbitter: I do not place any great importance upon the levels of treatment of certain diseases, or their natures. As an ex-teacher, however, I am much troubled about the doubts that may exist in people's minds when they have to deal with these situations. Any misuse of information by members of institutions would be very wrong.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has raised some important and interesting questions. I say at once—lest some of his strictures may have caused alarm—that my understanding is that the Clause has been enthusiastically supported by all the relevant professional medical organisations—The British Medical Association, the Medical Defence Union, the Medical Protection Society, the Institute of Hospital Administrators, the Royal College of Nursing, and the Ministry of Health. To say that this matter has not been carefully looked at is less than just and certainly not accurate.
The fact is that it may be the law already that a person over the age of 16 can give a valid consent to any surgical, medical or dental treatment. The main purpose of the Clause is not so much to change the law as to make it certain. This has been done at the express request of the medical organisations concerned in these matters. As the Latey Committee pointed out, the problem is not that the law is necessarily wrong but that it is confused and unclear, and therefore leads to inconsistencies of practice. The Clause is therefore designed to make it quite clear what may already be the law, namely, that any person over the age of 16 can give a valid consent to any surgical, medical or dental treatment.
The House will appreciate that this is a branch of the law which in practice must be applied by doctors, often in difficult


and urgent situations. It is therefore essential that, whatever else it may be, the law should be simple and clear. There is no rigid rule of English law which renders any minor—no matter of what age—incapable of giving his consent to an operation, but there seems to be no direct judicial authority establishing that the consent of such a person is valid. Until some years ago it was customary in practice to require the consent of a parent or guardian to an operation or to an anæsthetic being given to anybody under the age of 21, but for a number of reasons it has recently become more customary for doctors to accept the consent of minors over the age of 16.
6.30 p.m.
The B.M.A. and the other professional organisations that I have mentioned consider that the law should clearly provide that such consent is valid, and the Latey Committee agrees with that view—so do the Government. Clause 8 provides accordingly, but, as the House will notice, it does so in declaratory form, and subsection (3) expressly provides:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as making ineffective any consent which would have been effective if this section had not been enacted.
The reason for this is that the law relating to consents given by persons under 16 is not clear, and whilst it is not necessary or appropriate for this Bill to enact a code to cover those persons as well, we think it would be wrong to validate consents by persons over 16 in such terms as to cast doubts on the invalidity of consents given by persons under 16, if some of them would otherwise have been valid but for the casting of such doubts.
The Latey Committee said:
It is clear that in cases of emergency or unconsciousness all considerations regarding consent will be set aside and doctors will do whatever is necessary to save the life of the patient "—
be he infant or be he an adult—
to save him from permanent disability or from unnecessary pain and suffering. In this they can only be guided by their professional conscience and will be acting as agents of necessity.
I think it would be quite wrong to do anything by a side wind, as I think this Amendment would do, which might make the doctors' task more difficult.

The Latey Committee took the view that 16 should be clearly established in law as the age above which consent can always be given to medical treatment, but as a matter of ethics and practice—and it seemed to me that most of the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman were questions of medical ethics and practice—as a matter of ethics and practice. as I say, as opposed to law, the Latey Committee thought that doctors should make contact with the parents or guardian of a minor—or husband in the case of a woman—in every case unless the minor refuses permission. Moreover, as the Medical Protection Society put it, the doctor:
should also have some regard to the degree of emancipation of the patient, for example, a 17 year old girl wholly dependant on her parents and receiving her education at a fee paying school is in a different position from the young man of similar age living away from home and supporting himself".
It would seem that this is the kind of situation which the hon. Member had in mind. But I should add, perhaps, to complete the picture, that he also said it should be regarded as essential for the nature and extent of the proposed treatment to be explained to the patient by a doctor and that it should be on the consent form, signed by a doctor, that this has been done.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: rose—

The Attorney-General: It may be that I am dealing with the matter that I am about to be asked, but, if not, I shall of course give way. The Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman seems designed to incorporate in the law the single example given by the Latey Committee to demonstrate the need for flexibility in practice. That, I submit, is contrary to the recommendation of the Latey Committee and, I am informed, of all the medical organisations which have been consulted. All of these took the view, with which the Government agree, that the law must be clear and uniform and must clearly apply to all persons over 16, and I think it is very important—and this is where some of the observations of the hon. Gentleman went awry—that the distinction between the requirements of the law and the requirements of medical practice must be kept clear and that it would be quite wrong to try to enact the requirements


of medical practice in an Act of Parliament as if we were dealing with the requirements of law. Now I come to what I consider—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say as clearly as he is able whether the 17-yearold girl to whom he referred would be in the position to prohibit her medical adviser from telling her mother that she is pregnant?

The Attorney-General: I think she can do so now and I think she could do so under the Bill. Whether the doctor accepted the prohibition would be a matter for his conscience, of what he thought to be right and what he thought to be appropriate. I should have thought that the advice which the hon. Gentleman read out, being advice given by the Medical Protection Society, in this field was sound, but this is a matter into which, as the Attorney seeking to advise the House on the law, I would certainly not be disposed to enter. It must be a matter for the medical profession itself, by its rules, by its practices, by its standards, to determine.
What I submit to the House is that it is very doubtful indeed whether the Amendment would have the effect which it seems designed to have. Its only effect would be to exclude one class of persons from subsection (1) of the Clause; that would, however, still leave them subject to the existing law as preserved by subsection (3). As I have said, there is nothing in the existing law which says that these persons—the 17-year-olds, if hon. Members please—cannot give their consent now. As I have said, these days, and for quite a time now, customarily they do so and have done so. So, as it stands the Amendment will not be likely to achieve much, but it would certainly perpetuate uncertainty in one small and anomalous set of cases.
Let us, however, consider, for a moment, assuming that the Amendment might have some effect, what result it might have. The House will notice that it is not limited as to time, so that while any person over 16 who was not a student could always give consent, even if he was living at home, a person who fulfilled the conditions of the Amendment would, to some extent at any rate, be unable to give his consent, not only while

at school or college, when the tutor or person in loco parentis would have to give it for him, but he would be unable to give it while he was at home or away somewhere else, and that, surely, must be wrong on any view of this matter. I submit that it would add an intolerable burden, if, when a doctor had a difficult and urgent decision to make about an operation, perhaps when a young person is brought in after a motor cycle accident—all too frequent—he had to satisfy himself by law and as a matter of law that the patient, if under 18, was not
in statu pupillari and resident during term time at not less than half the year at an educational establishment
and that, if he was, the appropriate consent was forthcoming from parent, guardian, headmaster or tutor.
Therefore, this Amendment, in my submission, is wrong in principle, and would add an intolerable burden to the tasks which already face a profession under strain with, alas, the multiplicity of accidents requiring quick decision by the medical profession. As to the doctor's dilemma which the hon. Gentleman put to me, these are matters which the medical profession must itself regulate; but, as I say, my understanding is that this Clause has the approval of the medical profession, and I doubt very much whether the Amendment would have.

Sir Peter Rawlinson: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has undoubtedly stimulated a most interesting and very valuable discussion, and I am sure that the Attorney-General would not want anybody to think by his last powerful words—but said with the greatest agreeableness—that this is not a matter of interest that has been raised by my hon. Friend. We have had from the Attorney-General an interesting reply to the point which my hon. Friend made so many months ago which was not at the time appreciated.
I was more interested as a parent than as a lawyer. I have always believed that my daughter of that age would have to get my consent before any operation was performed. As a parent, I would certainly expect the doctor who treated my child in the circumstances pointed out by my hon. Friend to communicate with me.
With respect to my hon. Friend, it seems to me that the Attorney-General is correct in saying that we are concerned basically with the ethics of the doctor. The doctor should take upon himself such responsibility, and we sincerely hope that he will do so. The arguments of the Attorney-General have force and validity. Nevertheless, our examination of the position and the short discussion which we have had have been of immense value.

Mr. Elden Griffiths: It would clearly be wrong for me to seek to divide the House on the Amendment. In seeking to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, may I say to the Attorney-General that he has simply not answered the question which I nut to him on the advice that has been given to me by the Medical Defence Union, namely, that the right to professional secrecy goes with the right to consent to treatment, and that children of 16 could forbid their doctors to inform their parents or head teachers of their physical condition. I cannot believe it is right. I am glad to have had the opportunity to raise the question, and it may be that we shall return to it.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15

PRESUMPTION THAT IN DISPOSITIONS OF PROPERTY REFERENCES TO CHILDREN AND OTHER RELATIVES INCLUDE REFERENCES TO, AND TO PERSONS RELATED THROUGH, ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN

The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 13, line 6, at end insert:
(7) There is hereby abolished, as respects dispositions made after the coming into force of this section, any rule of law that a disposition in favour of illegitimate children not in being when the disposition takes effect is void as contrary to public policy.
The Amendment abrogates, if it still exists—and here again the law is in a state of some uncertainty, I am afraid—the rule of law that a disposition in favour of "future bastards" is void on grounds of public policy. During the debate on this part of the Bill the Committee used the old English expression "bastards"

without apology, in place of "illegitimate children ", "bastards" being both the old English and the true legal description.
The Amendment makes good an undertaking which I gave in Committee. The matter was raised by the noble Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). I expressed the view that, although the existence and scope of the rule was a matter of doubt, the Government's intention was that no such rule should operate after the commencement of Clause 15, and I undertook to put down an appropriate Amendment, which I have now done.
I gave in Committee the reasons for doubting the survival of this old rule. It has certainly been castigated by some of our judges, and the House may care to be reminded of the comments of the Master of the Rolls in the case of Sydall v. Castings Ltd. on this subject, when he said:
I think that we should throw over those harsh rules of the past. They are not rules of law. They are only guides to the construction of documents. They are quite out of date. We no longer penalise the illegitimate child. We should replace those old rules by a more rational approach. If they are wide enough to include an illegitimate child, we should so interpret them. Just as Mackinnon, J., did in Morris v. Britannic Assurance Co. Ltd., when he held that, in a statute concerning industrial assurance benefits, the word 'child' included an illegitimate child. So here, the words relations 'and descendants' in a group assurance scheme are wide enough to include illegitimate children and we should so interpret them.
6.45 p.m.
Other judges, Mr. Justice Harman, for instance, have questioned the extent of the survival of the rule which this Amendment abrogates. It is because of the doubt whether there is any such rule that the Amendment refers to "any rule of law" and not to "the rule of law". The Amendment does not, therefore, prejudice an argument seeking to show that the alleged rule does not anyhow apply to a particular disposition made before the commencement of Clause 15.
The noble Baronet did not commit himself to approving the solution to this problem which is contained in the Amendment, but it is diffiult to see what other solution could be accepted. The basis of Clause 15 is that a disposition in favour of relations, whether children, remoter issue or collaterals, is prima facie to be taken as being intended to benefit


those related through illegitimate as well as legitimate links. In the nature of things, many of those capable of benefiting on this basis will be unborn at the time the disposition is made, and it would be absurd if Parliament were to provide, on the one hand, that such a disposition should be construed as intended to benefit those persons, but, on the other hand, that public policy required this intention to be frustrated.
If, contrary to the philosophy underlying Clause 15, "future bastards" ought not to benefit, then Clause 15 is fundamentally wrong. If, however, Clause 15 is right, as I submit it is, it follows that future bastards should not be excluded on grounds of public policy.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I should be churlish if I did not express pleasure that the Government have seen fit to put down an Amendment on this point, because I insisted in Committee that something was necessary. To that extent I am grateful to the learned Attorney-General for the Amendment and also for his explanation.
The Attorney-General expressed doubt about the validity of the rule which the Amendment seeks to abolish. I am inclined to agree that there is such a doubt, but we must look at this and ask why there is a doubt. The answer is that there has been no need to test this rule for a very long time, and the matter is now important because of the insertion of Clause 15 in the Bill.
The right hon. and learned Attorney-General's argument comes to this: that, if Clause 15 is to be inserted in the Bill, it is necessary to make an Amendment in this connection also. If the Government had attempted to insert an Amendment the other way round, they may well have found themselves in still more of a difficulty.
This matter was carefully considered by the Russell Committee, a Committee composed of a number of distinguished lawyers and experts in the law. Having considered the matter, that Committee unanimously agreed that there should be no change of the law in this connection and that a provision on the lines of the present Clause 15 should not be put in the Bill. They decided that any change would be bound to lead to a number of difficulties and complications. It will

not be helpful to anybody, least of all to the bastard himself; it can lead only to doubt, litigation and trouble.
I do not agree with the sense in which the Government now propose to alter the law. I gave my reasons at some length on Committee and, in view of this Amendment, I shall repeat them quite shortly. The situation may arise where a person makes a trust in favour of a young person, giving that young person a life interest in certain property and then after providing that after his or her death the property should go to one or more of that person's children. At present, taking the ordinary meaning of the word "children", that is to say, legitimate children, no question arises in connection with the problem which is proposed to be dealt with by the Amendment. But if one changes the meaning of the word "children" so as to include bastards, the effect is that the gift is to a person who may be unmarried at the time of the gift for life only and then over to his or her illegitimate children.
In certain circumstances this is a direct invitation to the life tenant of the property to beget an illegitimate child so as to be able to secure the succession and to prevent it going away from his own family. It could give rise to cases where a person, either male or female, seeks to obtain an illegitimate child from another person on condition of some money payment. Where a substantial settlement involves £100,000, the kind of offer that could be made could be very tempting—perhaps even as much as £50,000.

The Attorney-General: Would the hon. Member say what possible benefit that would give to this remarkable character who is being described hypothetically? I do not know how he could benefit. He could have the dog-in-the-manger satisfaction of denying a relative something that he might otherwise get, but this course of profligate intercourse in order to deny a relative seems an unusual sequence of events.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not wish to go at length into the discussions which took place in Committee. I there cited the case of a married couple who were unable to have children of their own, who went overseas and came back with a child who was a child of one of them


but not the other, in order that that child should be able to inherit and keep the funds within the family. That is the kind of thing that actually happens. I have little doubt that it could easily happen under the law as envisaged in this provision.
The provision will lead to the kinds of complications which were aptly illustrated in an excellent speech made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General in Committee. I not unfairly described the speech as requiring a computer to work it out. Indeed, the Attorney-General paid very close attention to his script and I am sure would be incapable of repeating his exposition of the meaning of the Clause in the House today. This is only one example of the kind of difficulty which will arise as a result of the Clause. I object to the direction in which the Amendment has gone, I object to the Clause as it stands, and I should be willing to go into the Lobby to vote against the Amendment.

Sir P. Rawlinson: I share the views put to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). In considering these matters we must try to draw the law in such a way as to provide for these strange circumstances which, as those of us who practise in the courts know, arise from time to time. The case cited by my hon. Friend, odd as it may seem, strange as it must have appeared to those who listened to it, was a real case. We must try to ensure that the law is properly drawn to cover the whole of the area.
I share my hon. Friend's attitude to Clause 15. It is quite true that the Russell Committee unanimously decided that no such provision should be included in any legislation. The Amendment to the Clause takes us into an area in which it is sought to be said that it is no longer contrary to public policy to do something which has been the law. It has not been tested, but it has always been thought to be public policy that there should not be a disposition in favour of illegitimate children not in being. The Bill will now introduce the presumption that where property is being disposed of children and relatives should include bastard children and therefore the relatives of those bastard children. This

means that the disposer, if he so wishes, can include bastards as coming within the word "children". Because of the complexities, the inconvenience, and ultimately the litigation and cost which may well arise from these provisions, we should be most careful before seeking to change what in the past has been a rule of law.
It has been pointed out during proceedings on the Bill that a problem will exist where a claim is made through the father's line. The position of illegitimate children claiming through the mother presents no real difficulty in practice. The pregnancy of the mother is easily proven, and there is little dispute about the birth. But the bastard child conceived many years previously and not acknowledged by the father throughout the whole of his life presents the possibility of the bastard or the bastard's relatives suddenly appearing to make a claim on an estate. In the case of small estates such an event would give rise to very grave difficulties. A large estate with its resources will be able to beat off a spurious claim, but a claim on a small estate could be extremely serious. With Clause 15 as it appears in the Bill and no protection given to the possibility of spurious claims through the father's line, in my view we should not abolish the rule of law.
7.0 p.m.
Under Clause 15 we make a disposition in favour of bastards. The difficulty arises in the case of a bastard not in being. If a testator makes his will in favour of "my son and his children", that does not exclude bastard children which that son might have in the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South has pointed out, if we abolish illegitimacy we also abolish legitimacy. If we make a disposition for children including all children that a man may have in the course of his life, we shall abolish a law which has served the public policy of society and of the State.

Mr. John Lee: It is true that the controversial Divorce Reform Bill may make a difference, but where the parties have cohabited over a long period of time surely it would be reasonable for a testator to make provision not only for children in existence but those who are not in being.

Sir P. Rawlinson: Could not he do that? He could make provision "for the children of my son X and Jane X", by name. All that he has to do is to take that amount of care. If he says "the children of my son", 25 years earlier when a young man serving in the Army the son may have had a child by some woman. What if that child then makes a claim? Surely the onus should be upon the person making the disposition in the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman has described. It is for the testator to make it clear that he is making the disposition in favour of the children of his son by his common law wife with whom he has been living.
It would be a mistake to abolish this rule of law. The learned Attorney-General quoted the ringing tones and the words of the Master of the Rolls in his judgment in Sydall v. Castings Ltd. However, I do not think that they are wholly apposite to the problem that we are discussing. What the learned Master of the Rolls said in that case does not fit what we are looking at now. We are discussing whether we should remove from the general principles of English law the idea that bastards not in being should not be included in a general disposition. It is my personal instinct, therefore, to reject the Amendment, and I am coloured in my attitude to Clause 15 by the reasons which my hon. Friend has given.
By the Private Member's Bill procedure, in recent times this House has

Division No. 315.]
AYES
[7.7 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Ensor, David


Alldritt, Walter
Cant, R. B.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Allen, Scholefield
Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Anderson, Donald
Coleman, Donald
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Archer, Peter
Conlan, Bernard
Fernyhough, E.


Armstrong, Ernest
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Finch, Harold


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Crawshaw, Richard
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Barnes, Michael
Dalyell, Tam
Ford, Ben


Bence, Cyril
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Forrester, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Fowler, Gerry


Binns, John
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Freeson, Reginald


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Gardner, Tony


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Garrett, W. E.


Boyden, James
Dempsey, James
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Bradley, Tom
Dewar, Donald
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Brooks, Edwin
Dickens, James
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Doig, Peter
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dunn, James A.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Eadie, Alex
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Buchan, Norman
Ellis, John
Hamling, William


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ennals, David
Harper, Joseph

made great changes in the law. It may be that the attitude of some persons has not wholly caught up with the progressive attitude of the Houses of Parliament. But I do not think that we should abrogate this rule of law as an act of policy in a Government Bill. Therefore, as I share my hon. Friend's attitude and as my attitude to Clause 15 is coloured by what he has said, I shall join him in voting against the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: If I may reply to the debate briefly, the Amendment and Clause 15 are in keeping with the principles and approach of Part II of the Bill dealing with the property rights of illegitimate children. I would be the last to deny that the implementation of the new rule will not in all cases be easy. But as a rule it has the benefit of being simple and universal and, as a result of these proceedings, it will become immediately known to all legal advisers.
We are dealing with a sphere of property where the dispositions with which we are concerned are in favour of remote relatives, usually of a complicated nature and made on the basis of legal advice. I feel confident that lawyers will be able to cope with any difficult problems that may arise. As for spurious claims by remote bastards, I have confidence in the ability of the courts to smell out the rogue.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 119.

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Haseldine, Norman
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Hazell, Bert
Mackintosh, John P.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Heffer, Eric S.
Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Henig, Stanley
McNamara, J. Kevin
Rowlands, E.


Hilton, W. S.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Ryan, John


Hooley, Frank
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Mallalieu.J.P.W.(Huddersfield.E.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Manuel, Archie
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mapp, Charles
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Hynd, John
Marks, Kenneth
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Marquand, David
Silverman, Julius


Janner, Sir Barnett
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Slater, Joseph


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Small, William


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Mendelson, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Millan, Bruce
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Symonds, J. B.


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Molloy, William
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Judd, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tinn, James


Ke[...]ey, Richard
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tomney, Frank


Kenyon, Clifford
Moyle, Roland
Tuck, Raphael


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Murray, Albert
Urwin, T. W.


Lawler, Wallace
Neal, Harold
Varley, Eric G.


Lawson, George
Newens, Stan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Leadbitter, Ted
Oakes, Gordon
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Ogden, Eric
Wallace, George


Lee, John (Reading)
O'Malley, Brian
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Palmer, Arthur
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Park, Trevor
Whitaker, Ben


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Lomas, Kenneth

Whitlock, William


Loughlin, Charles
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wilkins, W. A.


Lubbock, Eric
Pentland, Norman
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Woof, Robert


McCann, John
Price, William (Rugby)



MacColl, James
Probert, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macdonald, A. H.
Rees, Merlyn
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


McGuire, Michael
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. Neil McBride.


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Robertson, John (Paisley)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Miscampbell, Norman


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Goodhart, Philip
Monro, Hector


Balniel, Lord
Gower, Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus


Bell, Ronald
Gresham Cooke, R.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Biffen, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Black, Sir Cyril
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Neave, Airey


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian



Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel



Body, Richard
Heseltine, Michael
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Holland, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunt, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pounder, Rafton


Burden, F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Francis


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Carlisle, Mark
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rees-Davits, W. R.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Clark, Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Clegg, Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Corfield, F. V.
Kitson, Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dean, Paul
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Russell, Sir Ronald


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lane, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sharples, Richard


Drayson, G. B.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Eden, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sinclair, Sir George


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, Stanley
Stainton, Keith


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Fisher, Nigel
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fortescue, Tim
Maginnis, John E.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marten, Neil
Vickers, Dame Joan

Waddington, David
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)



Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Woodnutt, Mark
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Waters, Dennis
Worsley, Marcus
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Wright, Esmond
Mr. R. W. Elliott.


Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Younger, Hn. George

Sir P. Rawlinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 13, line 14, at end insert:
(8) No trust for such members of a given class of objects as the trustees may select shall be void by reason only of uncertainty due to the impossibility of ascertaining at any given time the illegitimate children or illegitimate relatives, if any, of any person.

Mr. Speaker: I have had a word with both Front Benches, and we all seem to be agreed that with this Amendment we can take the following Amendments:
Amendment No. 7, in line 34 [Clause 17], after '17', insert '(1)'.
Amendment No. 8, in page 14, line 4 [Clause 17], at end, insert:
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall apply to an insurer who pays monies due under a policy of life insurance to persons entitled thereto either directly or on a distribution of the estate of a deceased, in like manner as they apply to a trustee or personal representative as therein provided.

Sir P. Rawlinson: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if we do as you suggest.
Clause 15 provides the presumption that in dispositions of property, references to a child and its relatives shall include bastards and the bastards' relatives. Clause 17 provides an indemnity in respect of dispositions of property made in ignorance of the existence of a bastard, but it is an indemnity which is given only to trustees and personal representatives. Difficulty arises not only in respect of a claim possibly being made very many years after the conception of a bastard. A difficulty which could arise in this circumstance is such that one has to take into account the position of those people who make disposition of property but who are not trustees, and may dispose in ignorance of the existence of a bastard.
The practice of certain life offices in small cases is, on the death of the policy holder, to make payment to the widow or to the next of kin without the production of the grant of representation. They do so in the smaller estates in order to avoid hardship and to give immediate assistance to the next of kin of the policy holder who has just died. What they do

in that respect is, I understand, an extension, by agreement, of certain provisions of the Administration of Estates (Small Payments) Act, 1965. The life offices obtain a statement of who the deceased's children are, and make payment without any risk of or fear of any risk of any other person intervening.
The life offices believe that where there is no widow they may be at risk if they do not satisfy themselves that there is no illegitimate child.
The deceased himself might not have known of the existence of the illegitimate child. The life offices therefore have been concerned and have been making representations as to the position which arises under this Bill. Will they be at risk and able to continue what I should have thought all hon. Members would consider an important and very useful practice, that of paying out before legal grant of administration? Many policies provide that on the death there should be payment out at the trustees' discretion. It may be payment out to a very wide class, including relatives and children. If, as the Bill will now provide, those children include illegitimate children and the relatives include relatives of illegitimate children, the trustees cannot be expected to review the whole class of beneficiaries.
The life offices fear that such a trust would be void for uncertainty under the rule of the Revenue case, Inland Revenue Commissioners versus Broadway Cottages Trust. They have sought, and would like to see in the Bill, some provision to prevent that rule vitiating a trust for illegitimate children by reason of uncertainty as to who are beneficiaries. Does it include the illegitimate children and, if it is for relatives, the relatives of illegitimate children? They have posed this question during the passage of the Bill through the House.
I can see that on the other side of the fence it can be said that there is no possibility of such a trust being held void under the rule in the Broadway Cottages case, but it is an opinion which can be expressed only and cannot be made sure until there is a decision or unless there is provision made in the Statute. It would not be difficult to imagine that the life


offices might discontinue small payments without asking for a grant, because of the fear and risk. If that were so they would demand first that a grant of administration should be obtained, which would mean the postponement of these payments out.
I can see the view which has been indicated that their fears are exaggerated and that they need not be so apprehensive. Clause 15 expresses an intention of presumption. It says that in dispositions of property reference to children and their relatives include references to persons related through illegitimate children. Therefore, it can be said that on one interpretation of the law Clause 15 is a rule of construction and a prima facie rule only. One can see that that is a submission and interpretation of the law which may be correct. However, can it be said with certainty that the entry of a new member into a trust does not affect the meaning of the words creating the trust? The life offices are not satisfied. They fear that they are being put at some risk. It would not be right for us to allow this Bill to pass into law without ensuring that there is not any such risk, and the purpose of these Amendments is to try to ensure that no risk arises.
It may be demonstrated that there are enormous drafting snags in these Amendments, particularly in a matter as complex as this. That may well be the case and, if so, it will be too late for this House to do anything about it. On the other hand, the Attorney-General may be able to satisfy the House that these fears of the life offices are unfounded. It would be highly inconvenient if grants of administration had to be taken out before the cash was made available. That would undoubtedly affect others not covered by the terms of the Amendment I have moved. It would affect banks, but they have not been included and it is too late to include them. In a small estate the bank is not usually concerned; it is usually the insurer.
Usually the widower or the son, wishes to draw from the life offices the not very considerable sum of perhaps a few hundred pounds to which he is entitled as the next of kin. But who is to say that he is the only next of kin? We come back to the difficulty inherent in this piece of legis-

lation that, without seeking to do something which most people think is a compassionate and sensible thing to do, to relate the laws of succession and to introduce the illegitimate child in certain circumstances we are nevertheless perhaps creating very considerable problems.
If the Attorney-General says that these Amendments do not do what I seek to do because of defective drafting or because it is not necessary, I hope that he will make a statement acceptable not only for its clarity and authority making certain that the Inland Revenue and the Estate Duty Office will be able to take note of it and appreciate that it has been said here with the authority of the Attorney-General. This seems an important practical point. We should not allow this Bill to become law without satisfying ourselves that the matter has been covered by legislation.

The Attorney-General: We have been giving careful thought since the Committee stage to the matters which have given rise to these Amendments. The conclusion I have arrived at is that Amendment No. 6 is based on excessive fears about problems which Clause 15 might create. My conclusion is that the proposed Amendment would create fresh problems rather than eliminating existing ones.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, the Amendment is designed to meet a point concerning the Life Offices' Association. The life offices have expressed fear that trusts for pensions schemes under which trustees are empowered to make payments to a specified class of relative of members of a trust will as a result of Clause 15 be caught by the rule in the Broadway Cottages Trust case. The Association has made clear that its members are not so much concerned with trust deeds drawn up in future, because they can always be drafted if required to exclude such classes of illegitimate relatives as may be desired, as with existing trusts. The fear of the Association is that, as it can be argued for some purposes that the entry of a new member into a pension scheme constitutes a fresh "disposition", the new rule of construction could apply notwithstanding that the trust deed had been executed before the commencement of the operation of the Clause. That fear is ill-founded.
The Clause is a rule of construction only, and subsequent events cannot alter the meaning of the words used in the original trust deed. For example, if the original trust deed specifies children as benificiaries and is drawn up before the Clause comes into force, "children" means legitimate children. Unless and until the trust deed is amended, "children" will continue to mean legitimate children, even though the trust continues in being after the commencement of the Bill.
7.30 p.m.
I have informed the Inland Revenue of my view that the subsequent entry of a new member into a scheme established under a trust deed executed before the commencement of the operation of the Clause cannot affect the construction of that deed, and I have no reason to suppose that the Revenue will disagree with that view.
One of the difficulties about the Amendment is that it is not confined to existing trusts. It appears to be so worded as to apply equally to existing and to future trusts. In so far as it applies to any trust, it is objectionable. In so far it applies to existing trusts, it is open to the objection that it consitutes retrospective legislation capable of upsetting existing rights.
The conclusion that I have arrived at on these difficult problems has received strengthening support from the observations of Lord Justice Harman in a case reported last week—re Baden's Deed Trust—where the learned Lord Justice dismissed, it is true obiter, the scope of the Broadway Cottages rule. In his view, the rule may not apply to ordinary family settlements, at any rate where the beneficiaries are close relatives of the settlor. Since, in practice, the only settlements likely to be drawn up without professional advice are those resulting from a "home-made will", it is, if Lord Justice Harman's doubts are well-founded, most unlikely that the Clause will ever cause such uncertainty as will invalidate a trust. Therefore, it would seem that the danger against which the Amendment seeks to guard may well be exaggerated.
It is the case that one of the consequences of the Clause is that those making settlements hereafter will have to be careful to ensure that in using expressions

denoting relationships without qualification they do not extend the possible range of objects too widely. However, in practice these settlements are invariably drafted with professional assistance from solicitors and others who will have the Clause well in mind.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, are designed to give life assurance companies the same protection as is given by Clause 17 to trustees and personal representatives, and their object is to enable the company to pay out the policy money to the relatives of the deceased without worrying about the possibility of there being illegitimate children with an equal, or possibly better, claim.
I agree that the practice of the Association in paying out promptly to the widow or other close relative of the deceased without waiting for representation to be taken out is obviously a sensible one. I appreciate the Association's worry that Clause 14 will make it difficult for life offices to continue that useful practice, because they will be at risk should a latent bastard, as we have come to know him in these discussions, subsequently make a successful claim to the estate.
There are, however, problems in what the Association proposes. Insurers are not the only people affected by this problem. Bankers also in practice allow close relatives to draw cheques on the deceased's current account on the manager's being satisfied that they are entitled to succeed. The problem facing the life companies is one which faces any debtor of the estate who is prepared to take a chance on paying the right person. One of the inevitable consequences of accepting the policy in Clause 14 is that the risk of making a mistake is greater.
Trustees and personal representatives, however, are in a different position from that of insurers, bankers, and other debtors. They are obliged to pay out to the persons entitled, whereas insurers and bankers are not; and they can, in a doubtful case, insist on representation being taken out. If Clause 17 were extended beyond the class of persons obliged to pay out, it is difficult to see where to draw the line.
In practice, the Association's problem is not likely to be as great as it fears.


The need for ready cash usually occurs where the assured is a man who dies leaving a widow. But if he dies intestate she is absolutely entitled to the first £8,750 of his estate. So in the case of an estate worth less than that sum the insurance company is safe in paying the widow. If the estate is worth more, she will certainly have to take our representation and, even in this case, the underwriters are safe if they pay her and take out an indemnity.
It must also be borne in mind that the greater the protection given to those paying out the greater the risk that the person entitled in law will be deprived of his rights. A balance has to be struck between attempting, on the one hand, to help the underwriters and the legitimate family, and, on the other hand, protecting the interests of the illegitimate child.
I regret that in the circumstances I cannot commend any of these Amendments to the House, but I am happy to have given the assurance that I have given to insurers in respect of Clause 15, and I hope that they will accept my view that their anxieties about lack of protection which they say they will suffer from are exaggerated.

Sir P. Rawlinson: I am grateful to the Attorney-General foe giving that assurance, as will be the Life Offices Association. However, there is no doubt that the Bill will create problems. I see the force of the Attorney-General's statement that in practice the problems may not be as great as the Association fears. Nevertheless, we have put the Association to a certain amount of risk and we shall pass the Bill into law with life offices and bankers, to a certain extent, having some degree of risk. This is unfortunate, but I do not think that we can do anything about it now.
I am grateful to the Attorney-General for having made his view clear and for having conveyed it to the Inland Revenue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19

POLICIES OF ASSURANCE AND PROPERTY IN INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES

The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 14, line 35, at end insert:
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not affect the operation of the said Acts of 1882 and 1880 in relation to a policy effected before the coming into force of that subsection; and subsection (2) of this section does not affect the operation of the said Act of 1965 in relation to a member of a registered society who dies before the coming into force of the said subsection (2).
This is a drafting Amendment arising from a point which was raised in Committee and which I undertook to consider. The Amendment prevents the Clause from affecting retrospectively any existing policy of life assurance, or the operation of Section 25(2) of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1965, in respect of a person dying before its commencement.
In Committee the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) asked whether subsection (1) would affect existing policies. I undertook to consider the question. As to the construction of an existing policy, subsection (1) cannot have any effect. Clause 15, which embodies the new rule of construction, does not affect existing dispositions and any reference in an existing policy to children will be prima facie construed as a reference to legitimate children.
Moreover, since Section 11 of the 1882 Act and its Scottish counterpart, as they now stand, operate on policies for the benefit of legitimate children, any reference in an existing policy to either of these enactments will be the strongest possible evidence that the prima facie construction is the construction intended. I hope that what I have said will reassure the hon. Baronet.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1

STATUTORY PROVISIONS AMENDED BY SUBSTITUTING 18 FOR 21 YEARS

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the next four Amendments, Government Amendments, Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13, are all drafting Amendments.

The Attorney-General: That is so. They are minor Amendments to include in the Schedule statutory references to the age of 21 which have come to light since the Committee stage. The age of

c. 44
The Customs and Excise Act 1952.
Section 244(2)(a)
Entry invalid unless made by person over 21.

No. 11, in page 22, line 30, at end insert:

1946 S.R. &amp; O. 1156.
The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board(Borrowing and Stock) Regulations 1946.
Regulation 36(1) and (2).
Stock held by persons under 21.


1949 S.I. 751.
The Gas (Stock) Regulations 1949
Regulation 19(1) and (2).
Stock held by persons under 21.

No. 12, in page 22, line 34, at end insert:

1955 S.I. 1752
The South of Scotland Electricity Board (Borrowing and Stock) Regulations 1955.
Regulation 30(1) and (2).
Stock held by persons under 21.

No. 13, in page 22, line 39, at end insert:

1957 S.I. 2228.
The Electricity (Stock) Regulations 1957
Regulation 22(1) and (2).
Stock held by persons under 21.


1963 S.I. 935.
The Exchange of Securities (General) Rules 1963.
Rule 1 (1).
Definition of "minor".


1965 S.I. 1420.
The Government Stock Regulation 1965.
Regulation 14(1), (2), (3) and (5).
Stock held by persons under 21.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

7.40 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read, the Third time.
This useful Bill implements three important Reports—those of the Latey Committee on the Age of Majority, the Russell Committee on the Law of Succession in relation to illegitimate persons, and the Law Commission on blood tests and the proof of paternity in civil proceedings.
We have had most interesting and helpful debates. I am grateful to the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) for guiding us through the labyrinth of the law of succession, around the fringes of which we have walked tonight for a short time. Having briefly heard some of the technicalities this evening, the House may well feel that this is a bit of the law that must be looked at some time, but I cannot enlarge on that on Third Reading.
The most important feature of the Bill is that it reduces the age of majority to 18. This important social and legal reform will enable young people, the generality of whom are maturing earlier and

21 will be altered to 18 in these provisions.

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 21, line 31, at end insert:

—[The Atorney-General.]

accepting responsibility at a younger age, to be freed from the legal restrictions which now affect them. There is little doubt that the present law is no longer geared to their requirements, and it is right that this change should be made.

We have discussed at some length the implications of the reduction of the age of majority for marriage. The Government's view, which the House has accepted, is that the age of free marriage should be 18, the same as the age of majority for all other purposes. The phrase "free marriage" is odd, and has only a technical meaning. There are perhaps few undertakings more expensive than marriage. In the Government's view, it would have been illogical if the requirements of parental consent remained until the age of 20, when all the other incidents of parental and legal control ceased two years earlier.

The change is important. The Law Commission is engaged in a study of many aspects of family law and I hope that the Bill will prove to be merely the first stage in a comprehensive reform of family law, which is clearly needed.

Part II takes important steps to improve the lot of illegitimate children.


We discussed at length the detailed matters arising from the change in the construction of the term "children" in wills, and have considered in more general terms the scope of the reform. Some hon. Members have felt that we were not going far enough, while others have contended that our approach was too radical. The need for better provision for illegitimate children has, however, been expressed on both sides of the House, and it is the Government's view that the present proposals constitute a sound and sensible measure of reform in a difficult field. The illegitimate child and his parents will now have the same right to share in each other's estate on an intestacy as if the child were legitimate.

The extension of the provisions of the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act to illegitimate children is also an important step which will go far to remove a fundamental injustice in our present law.

We are satisfied that these proposals will in no way weaken the institution of marriage. They will give a fairer deal where for so long it has been badly needed.

The third part of the Bill will give the courts considerable assistance in determining paternity issues. The provisions reflect the rapid scientific advance that has taken place here in recent years.

I commend the Bill to the House.

7.46 p.m.

Sir P. Rawlinson: One thing that is absolutely certain is that when we pass the final stages of a Bill which will shortly become law we are serving the best interests of lawyers. In the Bill before us we have three Bills in one. I can see great feasts for the lawyers arising from practically all its provisions, even that relating to blood tests, as a result of its many complexities.
I drew attention to the fact that the Bill is three Bills in one on Second Reading. I do not think that this is the best form of law making. There should have been three separate Bills. I know all the problems and difficulties that face the Lord Chancellor's Department in promoting such Bills, and the difficulties which face the Law Officers in conducting them through the House.
I think that my comments on Second Reading when I seemed to become unduly

exasperated by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) were unwarranted, and I am sorry that he is not here for me to tell him that I withdraw what I said when my quick temper flew when he intervened.
Two of the three Bills with which we are presented will affect many people. Despite the time we spent in Committee and the help given by the Attorney-General and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), I wonder whether we have dug sufficiently deep as legislators into the problem. It is a matter of great interest to us all that the Law Commission is examining family law. The extent of the family law is enormous, and I am glad that the Law Commission is making that investigation. But let us not hesitate to recognise that when it presents its report to us it is not Holy Writ being handed down. It is our responsibility as legislators to test its proposals and examine them with the greatest care.
Part I deals with the change which the House has agreed to make in the age of majority. It gives the advantages of free marriage, to use the Attorney-General's phrase. I have read of non-wives and non-marriages, but I think that "free marriage" means one that a person can enter into without obtaining permission from a guardian or parent. But we must understand that we have also imposed liabilities and responsibilities which have not hitherto been borne by 18-year-olds.
Up to the day when the Bill becomes law, a person of 18 avoids the responsibilities and liabilities. The Bill will impose such liabilities and responsibilities on them. I think that this will have a serious effect. I think that the essential decision was taken when we decided that the voting age, and, therefore, the age of adulthood and maturity, should be 18. But again it is right to be logical and it follows that the age of 18 should be for all purposes—fiscal purposes and purposes affecting all responsibilities as well as all rights. We have decided that, by the age of 18, a man achieves full adulthood and therefore full responsibility, and we must ensure that, in other legislation, a person at 18 not only gets rights but also accepts liabilities and responsibilities in every aspect of the law.
Part II is a matter of introducing almost unbelievable complexities. It has a compassionate and civilised aim which most of us agree with. Yet, hidden in it, is an immense number of snags. There is the problem, for example, that has already been raised—if we abolish illegitimacy do we abolish legitimacy? We have considered this matter in Committee and on Report. Undoubtedly, the effect of illegitimacy on a child in being has in the past often been very harsh. That harshness is now being eliminated. But we are still left with the problem, which we discussed earlier this evening, of the position of the illegitimate child not yet in being.
I thank the Attorney-General for the help he gave the Committee and the House on this very complex matter. He has himself already paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South. It was a difficult Bill and we have had great assistance from the Attorney-General.

7.52 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I thank the Attorney-General for the kind things he said about me. If I may say so, it has been the manner in which he has conducted his defence of some almost indefensible propositions that has often turned away our wrath.
The Bill is partly good and partly bad. When it is good, it is very very good and when it is bad it is horrid. Part I I find wholly good. On a personal aspect, perhaps I can claim the merit of consistency here. I believe that I am the only hon. Member left in this House who was here at the time of the Act called the "flapper vote" Act, which gave the vote to young women down to the age of 21. I made a speech on that occasion and dwelt on the aspect of responsibility. I believe that the responsibilities that the Act gave young women have proved to be nothing but good, and I am sure that the reduction of the age to 18 for giving young people full responsibility is a good thing and will work well.
Part II has very much in it that is good. It is right to bring the mother's illegitimate children precisely into equality with her legitimate children for all purposes. I do not see any difficulty there and I believe this is what everyone would wish. One of the most important

Clauses is that which brings illegitimate children into the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act. I believe that those provisions will be used a great deal to rectify a great many hardships which should be rectified.
On the other hand, part of the Bill is bad. I believe that the bringing of what has sometimes been called "unacknowledged bastards"—the Attorney-General called them "latent bastards"—into the intestacy of a father is wrong in principle and will do a great deal of mischief. The same is true of Clause 15, where the definition of children will bring bastards into many trusts where the person making the will or settlement has no intention of bringing them in. It will lead to litigation, blackmail and doubt. I believe that we shall find it necessary to pass amending legislation in this case at a fairly early date.
I find Part III of the Bill acceptable. I do not think that it will do much good but I certainly do not think that it will do any harm.
On that brief examination of the Bill, and weighing it up, I am bound to say that I think the good in it exceeds the bad by quite a comfortable margin. For that reason, I shall have pleasure in the Bill receiving its Third Reading and I only hope that my prognostications about the bad will not transpire, as I fear they will.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Leadbitter: I, too, have tried to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the Bill and to me it goes a long way to giving young people new rights and to bringing some sense into the subject of illegitimacy. Clause 2 is the one to which I spoke in Committee and this is the part of the Bill which, in effect, deals with the question of altering the date of what has been described as "free marriage"—that is, the reduction of the age from 21 to 18.
I indicated in Committee and re-emphasise now that it is not sufficient to be able to show that we have done a useful job in Parliament because we appear to have extended some sort of freedom. The contrary can be the truth. One can succeed in creating new limitations, new problems, for the people one is seeking to benefit. I want to address


myself to the language of the recommendations in the Latey Report, which says on page 51:
We can only end by saying that this is not because we think parents should never discourage their children's marriages but because this is not the way to do it".
Unfortunately, I object to the language in that Report.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We are not discussing the Latey Report on the Third Reading of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to how the Bill will operate or otherwise.

Mr. Leadbitter: So be it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the matter is so important to me that I am quite in order, I am sure, in summarising the intentions of the Latey Report. Clause 2 is part of the Bill and on Third Reading surely I would be in order in expressing my anxieties about its consequences. This is what I am seeking to do and I respect your Ruling on the finer point. Here we are involved with the question of the reduction of age for free marriage because of the thinking that consent is not the way to do it.
Whether we like it or not, we are living in times when there are great problems which arise because young people are sometimes misguided about their duty to society. I accept at once that the vast majority of young people are generous, creative and a fine example to the nation but, whenever we think of relaxing laws, we have to remember that there has been an upsurge of wrongdoing, of petty thieving, of vandalism, and much of it arises from the problems associated with the stresses and strains of modern life. Our courts are overworked because of their efforts to deal with this facet of our national life.
I am not convinced by the numbers of young people who go to the courts to seek consent to get married, nor by any other evidence, that to permit free marriage at 18 is wise. The stability of family life is generally to be found among those families where sons and daughters feel it right and proper and a privilege and an honour to ask the consent of their parents to be married. There is something about family life which we must protect and which must not be lost at 18. If the reduction of the age to 18 is regarded as

an extension of liberty, why should we not have the corollary of a reduction later to 16 or 14?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is suggesting Amendments to the Bill and that is entirely out of order. He may support the Bill or state reasons for opposing it, but he must not argue for alterations.

Mr. Leadbitter: I was not suggesting Amendments; on the contrary, I was arguing that there should not be Amendments.
The change will open up wide areas where young people will be vulnerable. Not only will they be able to get married at 18 without consent, but they will have freedom to sign contracts and make agreements without advice. Young married couples getting married are faced with highly complex problems. Earlier, we discussed guidance, but sometimes they will enter into these complexities without guidance—the problems of buying a house, or dealing with hire-purchase contracts for furniture. All this introduces a fearsome and a dangerous element into what for young people is an already strained situation.
I do not want it to be thought that I am saying that we should not liberalise, or that we should be restrictive. On the contrary, I take the view that some stability is a symbol of true freedom and liberalisation. I do not want to appear to be a "square". But there are some factors which demonstrate the need for care. Young people are remarkably generous and creative and are comparable with any previous generations, but there is a growing minority who are unable to deal with the complexities of modern life and who need family stability and who would benefit if they were not able to marry freely until they were 21. Incidentally, the Bill originally proposed the age of 20, and so the judgment of 18 is not based on hard criteria.
Many of those responsible for dealing with the consequences of delinquency and vandalism and the waywardness of footloose young people ask whether this is the right time for Parliament to reduce the age of free marriage. I know that nothing I can say will alter the hard facts of life, but at least one voice in the House has expressed concern about this subject.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. David Waddington: It has been said that this is three Bills in one. Perhaps the most controversial part is Part I, which we did not have an opportunity to discuss on Report and which I should now like to mention.
As usual, the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) has hit the nail on the head. As he said, so many of us do not like to be thought "square". Time and again I have been forced to the conclusion that far too often hon. Members have been so determined not to be thought "square" that they have thrown logic to the winds. I respect the membership of the Latey Committee, but I am still entirely unconvinced by its arguments. What strikes me as so peculiar is that after the whole of the progress of the Bill through the House there is still no public interest in this matter. Do not let us run away with the idea that people are queueing at the doors of the House asking for these responsibilities to be put on their shoulders. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are about to put into law a Bill for which there is no demand in the country generally and precious little demand among young people.
All too often it has been suggested that the Bill will be a boon to young people and will extend their rights, but that is not the correct way to look at it. By passing the Bill, we shall put on the shoulders of young people responsibilities which they have not had and we shall take from them protection which they have always had.
I still regard Part I with some dismay. It has been said that having decided to give votes to people aged 18, it would be thoroughly illogical if we did not give them full civil rights at 18. But it is often a far more serious matter to enter into a binding legal contract than to cast a vote. If a teenager casts a vote, the chances are that it will be cancelled out by the vote of some other teenager, but if he rashly signs a contract, he remains bound by it, and that is a serious step to take. We have been told many times that the age of 18 is a watershed, but almost every age is arbitrary to some extent. After all, one can ride a motorcycle at the age of 16 but has to be 21 to drive a heavy motor vehicle. No one

has suggested that at 16 young people should be able to make binding contracts, despite the fact that, although with parental consent, they can marry at 16. I am very concerned about Part I and am disturbed that the House should have put this Measure into law without any demand for it.
Part II is concerned with the property rights of illegitimate children. I agree that this is a very worthy aim. Clause 14 is particularly worthy, since it would allow illegitimate children to succeed on the intestacy of their parents. But I am by no means happy with the way that these provisions will work in practice. None of us who have heard the debates today is entirely happy with how it will work. Many years will pass between the birth of a claimant and the time when, on the death of his alleged father, he can make a claim on the estate. Might we not be putting an appalling burden on the administrators of estates, leaving them to decide whether a claimant is genuine?
Many cases will have to be taken to court and, if the estate is small, it may be dissipated among the lawyers. I say that, although I am a lawyer myself. In some cases—we hope only a few—the claimant will be bogus, but he will succeed, because, like all other legal systems, ours is fallible. It is not good enough to say that the courts can be left to make the right decision. It may be all too easy to make a bogus claim and difficult for the rightful heirs to rebut it. This may be yet another instance of hard cases making bad law. Because of our genuine anxiety to be fair to illegitimate children, we may be unjust to the legitimate.
At present, the word "child" in a legal document means a legitimate child. The Bill will reverse the rule for documents made after it comes into force. It runs entirely contrary to the recommendations of the Russell Committee. The Bill changes a rule of construction. I agree that ordinary English words should be given their ordinary natural meaning by the courts, but, in ordinary language, "child" means a legitimate child in one context and an illegitimate child in another. An obvious example is that a man and woman living together who are not married obviously mean their illegitimate children when they use the word, but a man who leaves money to his son


for life, and thereafter to his son's children, means his son's legitimate children. This will make the law more helpful in some cases, but less helpful in others.
I welcome Part III as much as anyone else. It is the least controversial part of the Bill. We should obviously allow the courts to use all scientific methods of resolving disputes, particularly about paternity, which can be so difficult. It is a great pity that three Bills should have been lumped into one, mainly because it is strange to think that, after all the debates on the Bill, we have not had a Division on the vital question of whether the age of majority should be reduced to 20 or to 18. If there had been a vote, I suspect that there would have been much more opposition to the recommendations of the majority of the Latey Committee than one would think from some of our debates.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

IRON AND STEEL BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

INFORMATION TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE ACCOUNTS

The operation of section 24 of the principal Act shall be amended so that in addition to the provisions therein the Corporation shall in its annual statement of accounts present details of the rate of return both on the total net assets of the Corporation and on the net assets of each of its principal regional or product groupings as is for the relevant period determined under subsection (1) of section 5 of this Act; and also the Corporation shall publish each financial year not later than nine months after the commencement thereof, in relation to the first half of the financial year, an unaudited statement of total sales, costs, profits, tax liabilities together with a summary of working capital and utilised borrowing powers.—[Mr. Stainton]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Keith Stainton: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause was drafted originally as an additional subsection to Clause 5, but, on the advice of the Table Office, it was thought better to make it a new Clause. However, it should be read in conjunction with Clause 5, which spells out the Corporation's financial duty. It should also be seen in the context of Clause 2, which is the provision for the switch from fixed interest capital to public dividend capital, expunging £700 million of commencing capital debt, leaving £134 million, and creating £700 million of public dividend capital, upon which the discipline, in terms of payment to the Treasury and hence back to the public out of the Corporation's profits is quite different from that which automatically arises in connection with the discipline of a fixed loan. This is an important starting point to be remembered.
The second starting point is the inadequacy, for public control, of the dividend machinery in Clause 2, although "machinery" is a most elevated expression. It certainly is not a policy criterion. Therefore, we come to Clause 5, under which the Corporation's financial duty is the only discipline in terms of this £700 million of public dividend capital. But the Clause fails to impose any realistic discipline. The specification of a rate of return on net assets
… as for the time being defined for the purposes of this subsection by the Minister …",
if put in colloquial terms, represents the result of a "private huddle". There is no question of Parliamentary sanction in the short term or almost equally certainly in the medium term.
In Committee we attempted to grapple with the situation by proposing that the Minister should proceed to stipulate performance on return on net assets by way of order, subject to Parliamentary procedure. But, in the coma of non-co-operation which seemed to obsess the Government in Committee, that was rejected without good reason. However, on Report, we are precluded from repetition. Hence we find ourselves trying to tackle this problem from the other end. Getting hold of the tail of a problem does not always commend itself as a solution, but if we can get hold of the tiger by this new Clause, we shall have made a distinct advance.
The new Clause tackles the problem by seeking to amend Section 24 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1967, which parades under the rubric of
Accounts of the Corporation and audit thereof",
by imposing on the Corporation an obligation to report as part of its ordinary financial accounting-reporting procedure the rate of return which it is achieving on its net assets. It goes on to enlarge on this duty and requires the Corporation to report not only on the total return but on the principal regional or product groupings—that is, the principal activities of the Corporation.
A very generous interpretation of Clause 5 might permit the Minister even to specify separate rates of return on separate parts of the activity. I should like to know from the Minister whether that is in his mind. But it is not an interpretation which would be mandatory on the Minister. Hence the new Clause. As Clause 5 stands, the Minister could satisfy the requirements of the Bill by stipulating a single rate of return for any period.
We do not want a long argument about what constitutes the net assets. May we rest this part of the discussion on the net assets shown in the last Annual Report and Accounts of the Corporation? I refer to the consolidated balance sheet in Appendix A on page 78 of that document. The net assets as reported there are £1,059 million. This is a vast figure by any reckoning. If the Minister can get away with it by simply stipulating one single rate of return on net assets, we arrive at the ludicrous position that a mere 1 per cent. difference in the stipulation of performance—the return on net assets—could be worth £10½ million per annum, or 1 of 1 per cent. could be worth £1 million per annum. One rate of return would be an unduly blunt and imperfect instrument.
I think that I am entitled to call in aid the provisions of the Companies Act, 1967, which spells out in fairly considerable detail the obligation on any public company or limited company to report the turnover of different activities of the company and the profits thereon if there are different essential elements in those activities.
A second reason why we should aim to differentiate the reporting on the return

on net assets and get away from the concept of one figure only derives from the second Report on Organisation, Cmnd. 163 dated 11th March, 1969, made by the Corporation. There are some extremely disturbing passages in that Report. First, the Corporation refers to its experience with its present type of organisation. We are not talking about a row of beans. We are talking about a sum—net assets, let alone gross assets—well in excess of £1,000 million. This is the largest industrial enterprise in this country, possibly in Europe.
The Corporation says:
In the eighteen months that have elapsed since then"—
that is, vesting day—
however, the Corporation has had the opportunity to study closely the major problems confronting it … It has also had time to examine the way in which problems of comparable size and complexity are handled by steel industries in other countries, and by industry generally in this country and abroad.
That is a curious comment in view of all the high enthusiasm for the nationalisation of steel and the precision with which this was represented from the benches opposite. Apparently, they knew precisely what they were doing and they got it absolutely right. Here we have the Corporation telling us, in the light of experience, that it has thought again, and its thoughts emerge briefly as follows:
As a result of its experience in operating the present system of multiple-product Groups it has become clear to the Corporation that this system by its nature impedes rationalisation and the optimum ultilisation of the Corporation's assets.
This was written only 18 months after vesting day. Then we come to the volte face:
Practical experience gained by the Corporation"—
I like the bit about "practical experience"; presumably theretofore experience was utterly impractical—
since vesting day has led it to believe that the disadvantages of a product grouping, which were envisaged in the Corporation's first Report on Organisation"—
in other words, when it started it nailed its colours to this particular mast—
would be outweighed by the advantages in promoting rationalisation and the optimum use of production facilities to which that report also drew attention".
So that we are now about to reorganise internally the physical allocation and


control of the activities of the Corporation.
That is the basis of the second very important point that I want to elicit in support of the new Clause. It requires a reporting by the Corporation not merely against the one figure of internal net assets but in terms of performance against net assets in the principal regional or product groupings. The reason for this wording is that the Corporation is in a transitional stage, and one understands that the regions may become product groupings. This does not preempt the situation; it leaves it open to that or any other intermediate form of organisation for which the Corporation might finally settle.
That is the case that I present in support of the first 4¾ lines of the new Clause. There remain 3½ lines which, in effect, require the Corporation to publish an intermediate profit statement each year. This has been designed to make the task as little arduous as possible. The Clause provides that
not later than nine months after the commencement"—
of the financial year. The Corporation shall report—
in relation to the first part of the financial year, an unaudited statement of total sales, costs, profits, tax liabilities, together with a summary of working capital and utilised borrowing powers".
8.30 p.m.
The most obvious argument in support of the second part of the Clause is to be found in the General Undertaking of the Stock Exchange. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the document—Memoranda of Guidance and Requirements of the Federation of Stock Exchanges, commonly known as the Yellow Book. This General Undertaking specifies criteria for all companies in the public sector quoted on the stock exchanges of this country. The criteria are much more harsh than I have specified for the Corporation.
The second reason that I adduce in support of this interim statement is that people in the country—not just hon. Members on this side of the House—are deeply disquieted about the course taken by the steel industry since nationalisation. I call in evidence of that statement the increase in the borrowing

powers allowed to the Corporation since the nationalisation Act came into being in 1967. The Corporation started with authorised borrowing powers of £300 million. This was under an enactment made in March, 1967. Last summer, by Order, that £300 million was increased to £400 million—an increase of 33⅓ per cent. The Bill seeks to increase the borrowing powers immediately from £400 million to £500 million—a further increase of 25 per cent.—with reserve power for the Minister further to increase the £500 million to £650 million—another tranche and another 30 per cent., admittedly by Order, but in all representing an increase on the original limit of borrowing powers of no less than 116 per cent.
I would not go so far as to say that the situation is out of hand, but when one aligns this position with the obvious financial difficulties—I do not say crisis—which are now clearly being encountered by the Corporation, a mere reading of its Annual Report and Accounts and a simple extension of some of the trends on the back of an envelope will give one all the answers, let alone the rumours that British emissaries of the Corporation have tried to raise money in Germany and Switzerland in anticipation of the Bill's going through Parliament and receiving the Royal Assent. This is an important second reason why the public should be equipped with a regular interim report of the Corporation's profits, working capital and the utilisation of borrowing powers.
It is on those very strong grounds that I move the Second Reading of the new Clause.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I support the new Clause and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stain-ton) on the most able way he moved it. It is of vital importance in building some common sense into this Bill.
This Bill is the predictable result of the nationalising of the steel industry. That industry is now returning to Parliament for more money and is treading the well-trodden path which has been taken by many nationalised industries in the past, and I have the feeling that this is not the last time that we shall see a Minister of Power coming back to this House to get more money to shore up a


nationalised industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge spoke about financial difficulties, and, of course, he is quite right, but this will come as no surprise to any of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, because this is exactly what we said would happen when the original Act of 1967 came into being.
However, the feature of this Bill, and. indeed, of all the debates upon it, is the total lack of clarity of any of the figures which have been given by the Government during our discussions. The Minister will remember only too well the storm which, when he was sitting in his place during Second Reading, broke about his head because the figures which we were given were conflicting and confusing. This new Clause would at least give the public an opportunity of seeing in some detail exactly what is the financial situation of the British Steel Corporation.
Apart from the fact that it asks for more money this Bill endeavours to dress up a nationalised industry as a commercial enterprise. We all know perfectly well that that is absolute rubbish, but at least this new Clause, if accepted, would enable the people to see what the true facts of the matter are. Therefore, I hope that the Minister, who is, clearly, in a very concilliatory mood tonight—I have seen him smiling—will accept the Clause as being a wholly sensible and right Clause to have in a Bill which deals with so much public money. I have never made any secret, personally, of my dislike of Ministers posturing as captains of industry.
I find the sight unhappy, and, indeed, dangerous. This Clause, if it were accepted by a Minister, would at least allow this captain of industry to have some of the disciplines which go with a normal commercial undertaking. It is not unreasonable that the British Steel Corporation, which is, after all, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend, one of the most important industries in Britain, when it asks the House of Commons, the country, for money, should make perfectly clear exactly where it stands financially. After all, a great deal of the ordinary taxpayers' money is wrapped up in this industry, and I should have thought it quite reasonable that he should have a clear picture of the Corporation's situation. This Clause, if accepted, would at

least build in something like discipline. It cannot be the true discipline of the commercial market because no nationalised industry ever operates in that way, but at least it would provide evidence of what the situation is.
It would do more than that. My hon. Friend pointed out the size of the borrowings which are required by the Corporation. An eventual sum of £650 million would be possible under this Bill, with the approval of Parliament: £650 million of taxpayers' money. At least this Clause would enable us to be given some indication as to where and why the money is required. During all the debates we have had on the Bill so far not one shred of evidence has been given in any detail whatsoever as to why this money is required or how it is to be spent.
Then there is the other element in this new Clause. It deals with he facts and figures relating to the possibility of the new product groups. This is something for which we have to wait and see; we do not know where the headquarters of the groups will be, we do not know what exactly their constitution will be. But we do know, after this very brief period of nationalisation, that the regional concept of geographical areas has proved to be a failure. I remember so well the arguments in 1963, when the then British steel industry was taken to the Restrictive Practices Court and accused of being monopolistic. It is quite clear, when these product groups come into being, that we shall be moving into the area of total monopoly in the British steel industry, with each product group an unchallenged monopoly on its own.
Therefore, in the new Clause we have sought to ask that the Corporation and the new product groups should at least declare their hand, so that comment may be made on their success or otherwise. Having attacked the steel industry as a monopoly when it was in private hands, and having set up a new structure which is now a failure, we are setting up a new State monopoly, and we should have an opportunity of judging its performance. I am sure that the new Clause will commend itself to all hon. Members. It is reasonable, sensible and essential. It makes sure that we, as the stewards of public money, are insisting that the steel industry should make its position crystal


clear about the money which it is receiving from the taxpayer and the assets which it controls.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I also begin by paying tribute to the closely reasoned argument with which my hon. Friend moved the new Clause. As I listened to him marshalling arguments, it came to my attention that not a single Government Amendment appears on the Notice Paper. The Minister is a modest man, and it must have crossed his mind that it would be extraordinary if, in the preparation of the Bill, he and his colleagues had been perfect in their conception and drafting on a matter of such importance. If he had been totally right in every word of the Bill, I suspect that he would have achieved something which few Ministers in any party have done. Perhaps this will prompt him to look particularly hard at the constructive proposal embodied in the new Clause.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), I was a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Companies Bill, 1967. We sat often enough for the deliberations upon the contents of that Bill to have been imprinted with a reasonable degree of clarity upon our minds. One of the major considerations in the Bill revolved round the question of fuller disclosure, and it was generally accepted that for large enterprises the time had come to move towards a fuller disclosure of information to the shareholders, the general public, the financial press and those who comment on these matters.
Since that Bill became law, people are much clearer about the type of information which should be disclosed. One class of information for which we should constantly be seeking, so that it can be identified and produced, is information which will enable the efficiency and the trends in efficiency in underlying constituent parts of an organisation to be assessed.
My hon. Friend has put the case so convincingly that I cannot believe that there will be no response from the Minister. I shall not speak at length, but I would draw attention to the recently published Reports of the Monopolies Commission on the Rank Organisation and the De La Rue Company, and on Unilever and Allied Breweries.
8.45 p.m.
The Monopolies Commission felt it appropriate to add some general observations on mergers in an appendix to their comments. The appendix suggests that information for disclosure by companies has some relevance to the new Clause. One of the Commission's comments which I should like to quote is set out on page 62 of the Report:
We have in mind here that the classes"—
that is to say classes of a business—
might be prescribed by the Board of Trade, broadly on the basis of the Standard Industrial Classification Orders, though in our opinion it would be desirable that there should be some further breakdown of the Orders in this context …".
In referring to the Companies Act, 1967, the Commission say that the directors' report must contain
the turnover and profit (or loss) figures for each class of activity which in their opinion differs substantially from other activities.
The Commission suggested that this provision had been variously interpreted by companies, a comment which I find rather interesting.
The Monopolies Commission then stated:
We further suggest that for each prescribed class of business the profit on capital employed should also be shown either in the directors' report or in the form of notes to the annual accounts …".
This is what is being asked for in the new Clause in connection with the affairs of the separate divisions which we are given to understand will be created by the Steel Corporation.
Since my small involvement in the proceedings leading up to the Companies Act, one of the criteria I have applied to all Bills dealing with public corporations and bodies in the public sector is that they should set the pace in conforming not only to the letter of the Companies Act but to its spirit. On one or two occasions in relation to the making of information and reports available within a specified period Ministers have responded to my promptings on this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge pointed to the requirement asked for by the Stock Exchange in their General Undertaking provisions to be observed by every company seeking a quotation or wishing to make an issue in the private sector. The Minister


must consider carefully whether he has any reason to reject this requirement in an enterprise in the public sector since he has laid considerable emphasis on his wish to align the British Steel Corporation so far as possible with firms in the private sector to try to make it a commercial undertaking with the same advantages as other commercial undertakings and free from any disadvantages.
I suggest that his protestations will carry more conviction if he will accept the new Clause for which there are such good precedents, both from the Monopolies Commission and from experience from the Stock Exchange and in the Companies Act, 1967, which was introduced and passed by the Government of which he is a member.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: Like my hon. Friends on this side of the House who have spoken in support of the new Clause I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) on the clarity with which he stated his case. I am sure that every hon. Member on this side approaches the new Clause in no sense of seeking to hamstring the British Steel Corporation.
In Committee, the argument was advanced repeatedly that what we were seeking to do was to make the British Steel Corporation commercially viable. That was commonly agreed on both sides. However, if one is to accept the argument of commercial viability, one must also accept the requirement that ordinary commercial practices should apply to the Corporation.
My hon. Friend said that financial discipline was of the first importance. There can be no doubt about the importance of establishing ordinary commercial practices in a nationalised industry. Throughout the course of this Bill thus far, the B.S.C. has been extremely generous in providing memoranda, statistical information, financial data and so forth. I do not think that it can be argued that the Corporation has been backward in providing information or that it would not be equally helpful in providing additional information were it the wish of the House that it should do so.
I would go further than my hon. Friend does in his new Clause. Surely it is of importance that one should want

to see profit forecasts set against actual performance. That is of the utmost importance in ordinary commercial undertakings. It should be of equal importance in a nationalised undertaking.
No one with any experience of budgetary control can reasonably expect such forecasts to be 100 per cent. accurate. Having spent a short period of my life in such work, I know that a 5 per cent. margin of error is normally accepted. I would very much like to see these half-yearly statements of account examined against the budgetary forecasts which presumably will have been made about six months before the beginning of the financial period in question.
I am not certain that my hon. Friend is not being too generous in inserting the words "unaudited statement". I cannot see why it should not be an audited statement. I imagine that, in common with other large organisations, there is a continuous audit process within the Corporation. Such organisations would employ a professional firm of accountants for what is called a balance sheet audit. That is probably being done, anyway. I would not have thought that excessive work would be involved in producing the figures which are the subject matter of the new Clause.
When my hon. Friends were making their points, I could not help trying to imagine the kind of arguments which the Minister will seek to employ in trying to knock down my hon. Friend's Clause. It could be argued that it seeks materially to alter the Bill. However, that is not the case. In fact, I do not see any logical ground on which the Clause can be resisted. It is merely a requirement for additional information which I am surprised is not already embodied in the Bill. It is not asking for anything which would not be required of a commercial undertaking engaged in any other field of activity. In view of the fact that the B.S.C. has been so helpful and generous in providing statistical data, I would have thought that it would be only too pleased to accede to the request embodied in the Clause.
I hope that this Clause commends itself to the Government.

Mr. David Lane: The new Clause deals with an important matter, and I am glad to support it. I hope that in the harmonious climate that has now


descended on the House the Minister will turn over a new leaf, and agree at last to make a change in his original Bill. Whether or not he does so, he is provided with a further opportunity to tell us a little more about the Government's thinking on the rate of return. Too often in our debates so far the Government have been coy, if not evasive. Too often, when we have asked major questions, we have had mini-answers. We need more clarity and certainty, and that is what the new Clause would provide.
We are still in the dark about the Government's intentions on the rate of return. I reread this afternoon what the Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee in answer to our Amendment seeking to tighten up Clause 5 by making it obligatory on the Government to set a target, but the Bill remains highly unsatisfactory in this respect. It is necessary to tighten it further before it leaves the House.
I particularly commend the idea contained in the Clause of a separate breakdown between the different parts of the whole business. The exact manner of definition does not matter so much, but the principle is important. This breakdown would be of great help in enabling us to judge relative efficiency and to tell whether different parts of the nationalised sector are taking an unfair advantage of their dominant position.
The second half of the Clause calls for half yearly results. I do not know when the Minister will finally leave his present office, but I am sure that, when he does, he will want to be remembered not only as the "Laughing Cavalier of Millbank", but as a bold innovator. He has already written into the Bill a provision that a target rate of return may he, and we hope will be, laid down by the Government: let him go further, and agree to our suggestion that at least this nationalised industry shall publish a half-yearly statement of results.
Many of the largest companies in the private sector publish their results quarterly without difficulty, and this obligation has proved to be a stimulus to management and a service to the public. The chairman of the Corporation has repeatedly said that he wants to lead the industry as a commercial concern comparable with the large competitive con-

cerns either in this industry or in other industries at home and abroad. Here as my hon. Friends have said, is an opportunity to make sure that the Corporation acts in the same way as do those other concerns.
Whatever may be our disagreements in the House about the method of running our national economy, I think that we all agree in welcoming the fact that year by year it is becoming a more open economy. There is more disclosure, and most of us want still more disclosure in both the private and the public sectors. But in the context of this debate I must ask whether the Government are serious in wanting the public interest to be safeguarded, and in wanting those interested in the industry to be well informed about its plans and performance. Are they serious in wanting the Corporation to be fully subjected to commercial disciplines in the way that other businesses are? If they are serious in all this, let them accept the Clause, or something like it.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: My hon. Friends have left me with little to say, but to me the extraordinary thing is that this is called the Report stage, yet there has not been one intervention from any hon. Member opposite. We have the pleasure of the company of the hon. Member for Sheffield. Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths), but he is about the only back bencher present on the opposite side, apart from the Minister's P.P.S. It is a sad fact that the House of Commons should be debating an extremely important Bill involving a vast amount of money with so little, if any, attendance of hon. Members opposite.
While my hon. Friends have been speaking I have been trying to think of what the Minister would say in reply. Knowing him a little, as I do, I am sure that he will refuse to accept this Clause, but I wondered why he would do so. He will smile, I know, and I am certain that he will charm the House, as he always does. I thought that he might say that the Clause is unnecessary, as he already has adequate powers under Section 6 of the so-called principal Act of 1967 to require the Corporation to change the form of its various returns. I thought he would not use that argument because,


if so, there would be no point in having Section 24 of the Act. The drafting of the Bill in Clauses 4 and 5 obviates the necessity for him to hide behind Section 6.
9.0 p.m.
I asked myself why the right hon. Gentleman should want to resist this new Clause. It seemed that the reason was that we were asking him to do something which either he or the Corporation would decide is a bad thing and against the public interest. I cannot see why that should be. My hon. Friends have clearly demonstrated that it would be in the public interest for the Corporation's accounts to be published in the pattern suggested in the Clause and that the accounts should be separated and refer to the new product groups which it intends to bring in. I can see no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should say that this would not be in the public interest. Every large enterprise today publishes its accounts in as much detail as possible. That is of great assistance to management and everyone concerned, including the shareholders. In this case we constitute the shareholders.

Mr. Stainton: I point out that the British Steel Corporation Report, in Appendix B, goes some way towards meeting the demands we are making, but the critical point about the new Clause in terms of reporting of assets is found in lines 4 and 5 relating to the stipulation about performance under Section 5 of the Act.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I was coming to that point. Under Sections 4 and 5 the Minister can give directions to the Corporation. We ask that the accounts should thereby be submitted. It occurred to me that the right hon. Gentleman would not like this to happen. This perhaps would be why the Corporation might object to this course being followed. I am certain the right hon. Gentleman will use some other method of getting round this point.
The right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary have shown tremendous coyness all through proceedings in Committee about coming forward with facts and figures as to the Minister's real intentions and the criterion by which he will judge and study standards. I believe that even at this moment the right hon.

Gentleman does not know. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) said, the last thing the Minister would claim to be is a captain of industry. He does not even look the part. I think the Minister is wandering in a country he does not understand, that he is slightly frightened of it and, in his usual charming fashion, he will laugh us through his objections to this new Clause.
That will be a great mistake for the new Clause should command great respect not only from the right hon. Gentleman but from all in this House and from the whole industry. There can be no substance in the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to accept the Clause. This is something to which he should give way, something which would improve the working of the Corporation and help the right hon. Gentleman and his successors in guiding the Corporation. I hope that he will accede to my hon. Friend's request and accept the new Clause.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: As I have been invited by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) to contribute to the debate, and as I worked in the steel industry for 16 years and represent a steel division, I shall do so.
In Committee and on Report, hon. Members opposite, instead of being objective and presenting their arguments in an adult fashion, turn into a mutual admiration society for the wonderful contributions they have made. Despite my liking for most hon. Members opposite, I find their contributions to these debates—I served on the Standing Committee which considered this Bill—like verbal diarrhœa. Their contributions are more in the nature of a party political broadcast than of an objective appraisal of the Corporation's problems.
I see merit in Clause. If my right hon. Friend cannot accept the whole of it, I hope that he will accept some elements of it. Because the individual companies making up the Corporation still exist, we have had a yardstick by which to measure the success or otherwise of each company. When the companies are dissolved, what yardstick will those interested in the industry have other than an overall picture of profit and loss? How shall we be able to measure whether the investment


which will take place is going to the right place? How are we to judge whether the decision to site the ore terminals will be on a political or an economic basis?
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to indicate the form in which the accounts of the Corporation will be presented once the companies have disappeared. The Corporation must be a profitable concern. There is a limit to the extent to which the nation can subsidise the various industries which are losing money. If the Corporation is to be profitable, we must ensure that the investment will not bolster up some development area but will be made in plants which are already making a profit. Although we have heard about the siting of some plants, we have heard little on the question of putting investment where individual works are already showing a substantial profit. My right hon. Friend should insist that future accounts contain a league table of profitable works and product divisions.
Before I finish, I should refer briefly to the disappearance of the regional groupings. It is said—I think that it is in the Bill—that the interests of Wales, of Scotland and of other regions will be safeguarded. I should like my right hon. Friend to tell us how this is to be done. It is rumoured that the setting-up of the product divisions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman may make incidental reference to the product divisions, but he must not argue the principle.

Mr. Griffiths: I shall leave it there, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Whatever his view of the new Clause, I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us in what form future accounts of the B.S.C. will be published, so that not only those of us who are interested in the industry but the nation also may see exactly where the money is being invested and what sort of return is coming from individual works and products.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Roy Mason): I admire the wiles and ingenuity of the gaggle of accountants which seems to have assembled on the Bill, and remarkably well have they

drafted the new Clause in order once more to have what has been very much a Second Reading debate on the steel industry.
The purpose of the Clause seems to crystallise as three main points. In fairness to some hon. Members who spoke, I should say that they mentioned the new Clause or certain aspects of it in Committee, although others wandered a little wider, especially the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson), but that is understandable since we became accustomed to his forceful expressions of view in Committee.
The three points are as follows. First, the determination by the Minister of separate financial objectives for the Corporation's regional or product groupings. That seems to be one of the main planks. Second, the publication of financial objectives in the accounts. Third, the publication of detailed half-yearly statements of the financial position and results of the Corporation.
I take, first, the financial objectives of regional or product groupings. The reference to regional or product groupings is impossibly vague and legally meaningless. This must be recognised by those who drafted the Clause. The Corporation has announced that it is changing from a largely regional subordinate organisation to one based on products, but even if this difficulty were removed the reference to product groupings would be legally meaningless. What type of product? What description? No product divisions have yet been clearly established, and no consent has been given. Therefore, even that would be difficult to spell out and put into the Bill. It would, I suggest, be legally meaningless.
More important, however, is that the only relevant statutory body here is the Corporation itself. The Minister of the day would not wish to be under a statutory duty to determine the rate of return earned by the subordinate organisations of the Corporation. It is not even certain whether each of these will be intended by the Corporation to break even or whether the Corporation itself will be concerned with its central result or the results of different activities.
My concern is with the central result, and to a lesser extent with the results of different activities. I should not wish to


take these powers, let alone be under an obligation to determine separate financial objectives for different subordinate bodies in the Corporation's organisation.
If one point behind the Clause is that, with only a central financial objective, the Corporation may be in a position to subsidise one activity from another—

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman has the wrong end of the stick. The new Clause provides that the Corporation shall publish the achieved rates of return, not that he shall lay down what rates of return are to be sought.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Mason: I hope that I shall deal with that.
As I was saying, one point behind the Amendment may be that with only a central financial objective the Corporation may be in a position to subsidise one activity from another. I believe that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) raised this point on Second Reading. The Corporation published detailed turnover and profit and loss accounts and balance sheets for its different activities at Appendix B at the end of its 1967–68 accounts. One hon. Member suggested that I would raise that as part of my reply, and rightly so, for it is a fact. Further, Section 25 of the 1967 Act, requiring details of turnover, estimated profit and estimated capital employed for different activities, is expected to be brought into effect soon. That should help considerably. This publication should be a sufficient safeguard against cross-subsidisation of diversified activities.
The second point concerns the publication of financial objectives in the accounts. The Clause appears to require publication only of the financial objective prescribed by the Minister in the accounts, not, apparently, a statement of progress towards achieving it. On the former point, I have already undertaken in Committee that the financial objective of the B.S.C., like those of other nationalised industries, will be announced to Parliament quite soon. I assure the House that the Corporation will also be expected to publish details in these accounts. The provision in the Clause is therefore unnecessary. Since I cannot agree to a duty to prescribe financial

objectives for the subordinate groupings, the question of publication in the accounts does not arise for those.
The question of half-yearly statements was mentioned, and I hope that I can be helpful on this. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) raised in Committee the problem that we are gearing the Corporation to a September year. But I am having discussions with the Corporation on the possibility of a March year to bring it into line with the other nationalised industries and what is done by Government. I hope that my discussions are fruitful in this respect. But we have to have the September provision in the Bill in the meantime. Since the Corporation is expected to change to a March year, I would not wish to impose on it a statutory obligation to provide much more by the way of half-yearly accounts than other nationalised industries or the relatively brief information published by companies generally. But the Corporation has already expressed its readiness to produce half-yearly statements similar to those required by the Stock Exchange in accordance with the undertaking given by companies having Stock Exchange quotations. It is my intention to approach the Corporation with a view to its publishing this information.
I think that I have covered the main points, and I have tried to be helpful. I have not suggested to the House that we should accept the Clause, but in view of the half-yearly statement, which goes some way to meet hon. Members opposite, and the point I made about Section 25 of the 1967 Act being brought into effect soon, which will give us much more information, I hope that the House will accept what I have said.

Sir John Eden: My hon. Friends will be grateful to the Minister for the spirit in which he answered the debate and for some of the things he said. They made out an extremely strong case for the Clause, as he recognised. As he also recognises, the main purpose behind our tabling it was to ensure that in as many respects as possible the Corporation would accord with accepted commercial practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) twitted Government back-benchers, fairly, for


the fact that so few of them are present and that up till then not one of them had taken part in the debate, as a result of which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) intervened. He then said that we on this side were becoming like a mutual admiration society. I was rather sorry for the hon. Gentleman because he cut a rather lonely figure. He seemed to have no one mutually to admire. But he need not worry about it, and nor do we, because he went on to make a first-class speech in support of new Clause 1. He does not need anyone mutually to admire. He can pat himself on the back for his contribution and for the powerful support he gave our arguments.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Has the hon. Gentleman not heard of the well known adage that it is quality that counts and not quantity?

Sir J. Eden: Quality is better even when it comes in abundance than when it comes singly, and, as he has so fairly recognised, from the position in which he sits at the moment he is able to view quality in superabundance.
The hon. Gentleman asked some pertinent questions—most notably, what form will the accounts take? It is this underlying anxiety which has filled us on this side. We have not been told exactly how the Corporation is to proceed from here. Understandably, we are not clear as to what will be the nature of the organisation of its subsequent groupings. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) so forcefully declared, this is bound to become an increasingly strong monopoly in individual product groups and we want to be as certain as we can that it is fairly costed out all the way through and that the public at large are aware of what is taking place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) put it very fairly when he said that we want to be in touch with the trends, that this must provide us with a measure of efficiency and that we should, as a result of the forward disclosure in the Corporation's accounts, be aware of the underlying trends of efficiency in the constituent parts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) made it clear that new Clause 1 refers back to Clause 5 and the power which the Minister has there to fix the target for the Corporation, and, as the right hon. Gentleman recognised, this is the critical part of new Clause 1. We want to be quite certain here that the powers which the Minister has, not only under this Bill but also under Sections 6 and 24 of the 1967 Act, will be used by him to require the disclosure of information such as will enable people outside the Corporation to assess the performances of clearly defined units of operation and to judge those performances against the targets set by the Minister.
The right hon. Gentleman had comparatively little to say about Section 17 of the Companies Act, which was the point my hon. Friends brought forward in support of their case because it is in that Act that we find the most justification for bringing into the new Clause I the requirement for disclosure under a number of different headings. The right hon. Gentleman went a long way to meet us on the question of certain of the Stock Exchange "Yellow Book" criteria of the publication of interim statements. This will carry us considerably further than we had expected to be the case when we put down new Clause 1.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend make clear what the Minister said? Did he say that he would insist on the Corporation publishing half-yearly returns starting from the moment after lie has managed to get it to change to annual returns starting at the same time as the Treasury's financial year, or is he to hope that it will?

Sir J. Eden: The Minister will have heard my hon. Friend's question and may wish to intervene in my speech to supplement what I am about to say, but it was certainly my understanding that he would require the Corporation to do this, that is, as soon as he has got the Corporation on to an accounting year basis similar to that of other sectors, he will require it to publish an interim statement.
One of the things which has been worrying us is the powers of other Sections of the principal Act which give discretionary power to the Minister. We


were seeking by the new Clause to impose statutory obligations on the Corporation to produce this information. If the Minister can assure us that the way in which he proposes to exercise the powers which he has described is no less effective than that, we shall be very much relieved. If I take that to be his intention, in view of his assurances given on the publication of an interim statement generally, I am sure that my hon. Friends would not wish to press the new Clause.

Mr. Stainton: It is my understanding that, as the hon. Member who proposed the new Clause, I may say a few words to conclude the debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has the right to say a few words.

Mr. Stainton: The essential difference between the Minister and myself and my colleagues is concerned with the expression in the new Clause, "principal regional or product groupings". I made it clear that I was endeavouring to pin down the Minister, not simply to one figure in one return of net assets, but to differentiate between principal activities.
I was disconcerted by the Minister's lack of response on this point. He disposed of it simply in legal terms. I cannot but refer to Section 17 of the Companies Act which finds it perfectly adequate to talk about a business carrying on businesses of two or more classes. If that imposes the test of the courts, regional product groupings would go a long way further.
Be that as it may, on the whole the Government have come a long way in their assurances, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we have a fair amount of work ahead of us on this Bill and the next. Speeches so far have been commendably brief.

Clause 4

POWER OF THE MINISTER TO EFFECT FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 2(1), NOTIONAL CAPITALISATION OF RESERVES OF THE CORPORATION AND THE PUBLICLY OWNED COMPANIES

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 3, line 27, after 'years', insert:
'and within a period not exceeding two weeks following a determination or direction in compliance with section 2 of this Act'.
The Clause relates to the capitalisation of reserves. In Standing Committee, we debated the full implications of the rather odd importation into nationalised industry legislation of the public bonus issue, as it has been dubbed, which device has been copied from private industry in order to try to reflect more accurately the true worth of the equity of the Corporation. The declaration of the dividend and the decision as to how much to put to reserve go hand-in-hand. They are the same operation, and they are part of the annual apportionment of the profits of the Corporation as a whole. When a private company makes its fundamental financial decisions, it allocates a certain amount of profits to its reserves and a certain amount, as dividends, to the shareholders, but it does both operations at the same time.
9.30 p.m.
If we are going to copy these devices, if we are to play at tycoonery in the public sector, we must do so properly and completely. Of course, the capitalisation of reserves is part of the same operation as the declaration of a dividend, so this modest Amendment would simply require the Minister to make his decision about capitalisation of reserves within two weeks of the declaration of any dividend on the public dividend capital.
There cannot be much difficulty in accepting this principle, since it would clearly be wrong to give the Minister power to force the Corporation to capitalise its reserves at some late stage in the financial year. It could even be used as an act of chastisement by the Minister, suddenly stalking into the Corporation's offices in a fit of petulant fury and capitalising some of its reserves. We seek to protect the Corporation from such high-handed action. The right hon.


Gentleman would not dream of doing such a thing himself, of course, but the Government have been doing some strange things lately—we saw an example earlier today—and some action like this in future would not surprise us.
What we seek is that declaration of the dividend should go hand in hand with any capitalisation of reserves which might be contemplated. The two weeks' grace is simply to allow the Minister time to consider the dividend which has been declared and then to declare any capitalisation. This is a useful Amendment, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) for having devised it. It is a slight protection for the Corporation and a correct addition to the practice. I have no doubt that the Government will want to accept it, and I look forward to hearing that from them.

Mr. Stainton: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). It strikes me forcibly that the dividend decision under Clause 2(2) runs exactly in parallel with the capitalisation requirements under Clause 4. Both the capitalisation of reserves and the declaration of a dividend, by definition, come within the same pool of available profits in the Corporation's accounts. What one is seeking to do in this small Amendment is to protect the Corporation so that, in effect, the capitalisation decision is made, if not simultaneously with the dividend decision, at least very rapidly thereafter—and that it is for the financial year.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Free-son): There is no basic difference between us here. I suspect that the tabling of this Amendment, which pursues a point discussed in Committee, chiefly on the initiative of the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), arises perhaps from a slight misunderstanding of the position, which I thought I had dealt with satisfactorily in Committee. In our sitting on 24th June, I explained that there was not a need for such a narrow time limit within which a direction under this Clause could be made, because
…the Corporation does not need to know what notional additions are to be made to public dividend capital until immediately before the end of a financial year…"—

[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 24th June, 1969, c. 301.]
Perhaps I did not explain clearly enough in Committee that any capitalisation of reserves will become part of the p.d.c. return for the forthcoming year whereas the p.d.c. return referred to in Clause 2(2) relates to the current year when one is looking at the reserves under consideration for capitalisation.

Mr. Stainton: I suggest that, although Clause 2(2) refers to the year, there will be a theme about dividend decisions. It is in this context that I am anxious to marry the capitalisation with the dividend decision.

Mr. Freeson: There is no difference on this point. The link between capitalisation of reserves and the p.d.c. return which the Minister will have to decide annually is to be taken as occurring over a period. One does not necessarily relate the capitalisation within a given 12 months to the p.d.c. return which the Minister has required for that 12 months. Therefore, it is undesirable to relate the capitalisation to the two weeks within which a determination will be made by the Minister.
Although I have been a little convoluted, I hope that I have clarified the points which were raised.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 6

DURATION OF CERTAIN OF THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 4, line 32, leave out '1973' and insert '1972'.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take at the same time Amendment No. 26, in page 4, leave out lines 37 and 38, and Amendment No. 27, in line 41, at end insert:
'not exceeding any period greater than five years'
which are linked on the question of timing.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Clause 6 deals with the duration of certain powers which the Minister will have. Briefly, those powers are, first, to provide the level of public dividend capital; secondly, to direct the notional capitalisation of


reserves; and, thirdly, to set specific financial duties for the Corporation. These powers would normally lapse at the end of the first financial year to end after 1973. By these Amendments, we seek to shorten that time by inserting "1972".
As the Clause is drafted, at the end of the financial year after 1973, the Minister may, by order, have the provisions extended permanently or for a specified time. We are strongly opposed to having a permanent feature of this type built into the Bill. We are far from happy that there should be an extended period for this exercise without the most careful vetting.
I find it hard to discover any common ground about the concept of p.d.c. It is well known that in this concept the eventual return will be determined by the Minister. That means that the Minister acts as the principal shareholder, board of directors, and everybody else.
Those people whose money is involved in p.d.c. should realise that a variable return may mean that on certain occasions there is no return at all. We regard this concept as somewhat dangerous. It was brought into the Bill because the Government and their supporters have spent much time moaning about the fact that the Corporation is labouring under a heavy capital debt. I ask the Minister: who put that debt on the British steel industry? Why are the incumbents of the Corporation labouring under this debt? The answer is that it was first put there by the nationalisation of steel by a Labour Government—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a Third Reading debate. The hon. Member must link what he has to say with the Amendment that he is moving.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I shall be guided by you, Mr. Speaker. I was merely pointing out that the concept of p.d.c. was to remove the incidence of capital debt on the Corporation. We believe that this experiment, as it is described, should be carefully watched.
These Amendments seek to shorten the time of this experiment by approximately one year. I hope that the Minister realises that the Amendments are intended to be helpful, and that it is not a question of dragging the plant up by the roots to

inspect it over a shorter period. Because it is an experiment we want an opportunity to look at it over a shorter period than is provided for in the Bill. We are converting a large part of the capital debt of the Corporation into public dividend capital. The performance of the Corporation during the years to the end of 1973 may be unhappy and difficult. We have already had one problem in relation to the views expressed by the N.B.P.I. which could affect the return on this dividend capital. We are merely giving the Minister an opportunity of examining the situation rather more quickly than he would do under the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Hall-Davis: I shall be brief. I want to put only one point and to ask only one question. My objection to the Clause is that it gives the impression of giving full opportunity for a continuing scrutiny of this arrangement but when one reads it closely one sees that it is not what it seems. I know that many Clauses are not what they seem on first reading, but this Clause disguises the fact that, in effect, there will be only one guaranteed opportunity for review according to the provisions of the Bill—the review at the date specified in subsection (1).
It is right that the implication of the Clause should be made clear. I should like to know whether I am right in assuming that if the Minister acts under subsection (2)(a) he or his successor will not have power to revoke the Order. In other words, is an Order that the provision shall continue in force permanently subject to a change of mind on the part of a Minister if he finds that there has been a dreadful mistake and the system is not working properly, or is it a permanent Order which would require legislation to overturn or withdraw? This is important, because we are dealing with a new departure and we are providing only one guaranteed opportunity for review. The Minister seems to be committing himself to not being able to change his mind. In our view this is too limiting a factor.

Mr. Mason: We are dealing with three small Amendments grouped together. Amendment No. 25, if accepted—and it is not my intention to accept it—would cut back the experiment with p.d.c. by one year. It does not seem to make sense. I do not see the aim of the exercise.


There is a precedent for the creation of public dividend capital in the B.O.A.C. There the first experimental period was for five years. We suggest the same period in the Bill.
9.45 p.m.
Secondly, I think that five years is really the minimum for the test. We have talked a lot about a cyclical industry, and one of the reasons why we agreed that p.d.c. should be established for the British Steel Corporation is that it is subject to fluctuating returns and would need a span of time before we could look back and check whether p.d.c. had worked fully. So I do not think it makes sense to cut back the time.
Thirdly, when p.d.c. came in it was considered that the Corporation should be given time to make up its losses and earn profits to pay minimum dividends and tax, on p.d.c. and I would not have thought it sensible to cut back from five years to four.
If Amendment 26 were accepted it would allow me to keep p.d.c. in being permanently only if I agreed to go through the substantive legislative process—that is what I think the hon. Member is referring to—instead of by order. Of course, even that order would still necessitate Parliamentary debate and consent. I think it is likely that for the British Steel Corporation and this industry, because of its nature, we may wish to keep this system of financing in being. It is right, therefore, that there should be in the Bill provision for us to do so, via an Order.
Amendment 27 is a further restriction designed to end p.d.c. after five years.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that Amendment 26 would make him come to the House for substantive legislation. I do not think it is so. I think the effect of the Amendment would be merely that he would have to come back under Clause 6(2)(b) at the expiration of the Corporation's financial year or as might be specified in the Order. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in his argument.

Mr. Mason: Well, I gather that Amendment 26 would take out Clause 6(2)(a) which gives the Minister by Order the right to continue the powers in

force permanently after the time they would otherwise expire.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: If the Amendment were accepted the Clause would read:
The Minister may be order (made by statutory instrument) direct that the said sections"—
that is, Sections 2(1), and 4 and 5—
shall continue m force after that time until the expiration of such of the Corporation's financial years as may be specified in the order …

Mr. Mason: Yes, but even if I were impressed by the hon. Gentleman's argument I still would not be agreeable to accepting the Amendment—

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Why not?

Mr. Mason: Because I said I might wish to keep this system of financing in being. I am also suggesting that if I wanted to do it by Order I might instead have to go through the substantive legislative process to do so.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Keep on coming back?

Mr. Mason: Yes, I shall be coming on—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are at the Report stage, and it is a little more formal than Committee.

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman would stop me from establishing p.d.c. as a permanency. I am very surprised. I would have thought, as I said initially, that, as this industry is one which, by its nature, is one of fluctuating returns, but viable in itself, p.d.c. would have been right for it. I think the experiment will succeed. I do not think that the Corporation should be lethargic, and, so to speak, lie back on a couch, but that Board and manpower alike will work and will succeed. I shall expect to get from public dividend capital at least what I would have got from fixed interest capital, and as the B.O.A.C. precedent has succeeded, I see no reason why this experiment should not, too.

Mr. John Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman has furnished the House with as unsatisfactory an answer as one can expect on the basis of experience in Committee. The experiment, and it can be no more than an experiment, of public dividend capital is a hazardous and rash one from the point of view of the nation.


I entirely appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman looks upon this more as a matter of party interest and dogma than from the point of view of the nation.
When he said, "I may wish to keep this system of financing in being either for a period or for ever, and I wish to do so by Order", I regard this as pushing the tactics of dictatorship a little too far. The Bill gives him much too wide discretion.
While it is no Dart of my purpose tonight to criticise the selection, I nevertheless regret that we have not been able to deal in detail with other Clauses, particularly those referred to in this Clause, that is to say, Clauses 2(1), 4 and 5.
The Minister is introducing what I regard as a fraudulent device—public dividend capital—which he hopes will give him a return greater than he could get from a fixed interest loan to a nationalised industry. This is not saying much, because nationalised industries have made a habit of regularly writing off whacking great losses of capital at the national expense. What the Minister means is that this undisguised loss to the taxpayer will be clothed, so far as words can do so, in a garment of respectability, and so we have this queer hybrid animal, public dividend capital.
The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, under the heading of Clause 5, says of the Minister that:
He may, by order, express the financial duty in a form other than as a rate of return on net assets but any such order would have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament.
Will the Minister be good enough to give one of his less cursory answers and say exactly what is meant by that?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Financial Memorandum. We are not discussing the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman regrets has not been selected. The Amendments we are discussing propose certain time checks, and the hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to those.

Mr. Peyton: I have already expressed my regret that we are not discussing those matters, and I would not wish to do so more strongly than I have done. I am saying that this is a rash and undesirable experiment which should not be continued indefinitely. I am endeavouring

to say why it is undesirable, and, therefore, why it should not be continued indefinitely, and I hope that I am not being disrespectful to the Chair in saying that.
I am asking the Minister to go to some length to explain to the House what he means by this. What kind of return over this period is to be expected from public dividend capital? If it is not to be a return on net assets, what does he mean? Can the Minister be a little more specific, or is he saying that he will have to go through the tiresome procedure of having to come to the House to say that a nationalised industry is to be given a nice, respectable way of swallowing up capital rather than that it should be written off in the future?
One of the reasons for the Amendment is that we, as representatives of the taxpayer who has been called upon to buy this industry, are entitled to have certain procedures observed. The Minister should have to go through this tiresome performance—and he has virtually said that it would be tiresome for him. If the experiment does not look like working he would not be able to get away with a by merely coming to the House for an order. He would have to come to the House and go through the full process of an Act of Parliament to continue an experiment which had been proved unsatisfactory.
We all know that the Minister finds Parliamentary debate and discussion rather tiresome. He has his views about how one can dress up with words thoroughly unsatisfactory and unrespectable proceedings. He does not like to have to deal with them in detail or at any length. One can only admire his discretion. He plainly does not wish—ne has not the talent of the Chief Secretary—to go to the lengths of justifying what cannot be justified.
We are concerned that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, should have the impudence to ask for powers to perpetuate, not merely a rash experiment, but an experiment which if indulged on by a privately-owned industry would land its directors in an uncomfortable situation in the Old Bailey. I am not saying that that would be an improper place for the Minister and his colleagues to find themselves. I am merely suggesting that


the House of Commons would be most unwise to agree, without any resistance at all, to give its fiat to such a monstrous, naked proposal; a proposal built upon the twin pillars of total incompetence and a measure of fraud.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I wish to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). I would not have intervened if the Minister had given to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) a straight answer to a straight question.
I find particularly objectionable subsection (2)(a), under which the Minister may by Order continue in force permanently the public dividend capital. That is an extraordinary large power. I am sure that my hon. Friend was right to ask whether it was the Minister's intention under that subsection to continue the provision in force permanently and, if so, what "permanently" means.
The Minister in a very short and I thought cursory speech, brushed the question aside. He surely owes the House an explanation which so far he has not given. We all know that it is an experiment and should be as short an experiment as possible. I must strike a petty attitude on this matter and hope that a Conservative Government will not be inhibited by any legislation in going as far as 1973. I hope that we shall be able to get rid of it in 1972 or earlier. I would prefer the Amendment to read 1971) or 1971 rather than 1973—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak to an Amendment which is not on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Griffiths: Mr. Speaker, I am supporting the date 1972 but wishing that it had been earlier.
The Minister tells us that this is an experiment, and though I have some regard for his achievements in office, I remember an occasion some years ago when he jumped, fully dressed, off the end of a pier into a vast quantity of water. I suggest that he is doing something similar here. He has a completely unknown body of water called public dividend capital, and he is leaping in—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Iron and Steel Bill and the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

IRON AND STEEL BILL

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Griffiths: I was about to say that, once again, the Minister is leaping fully clothed into a large and unknown experimental body of water, and we do not know how we shall fare. In view of that, it is only sensible to limit the length of time in which he will be floundering about in it. It is not an edifying thought to imagine that we shall have the Minister permanently floundering about in this experiment. For his good as well as the country's, I should like to put a very short term to it.
When the Minister was speaking to Amendment No. 26, which I also support, he said that he might want to keep it in being by Order
… without having to come too often to Parliament.
That was an extraordinary remark for a Minister who is responsible to this House. He should regard it as a privilege to explain to the House what he is doing. This House represents those who pay his salary as well as the salaries of the rest of us and who have to provide the money which he is chucking round in a haphazard fashion. Therefore, he ought not to take this view about coming to the House of Commons. He ought to explain to us in great detail what exactly he is doing.
Throughout his speech, I was struck by his display of what can only be called mindless optimism. He gave the impression that somehow it would be all right on the night and that, if only he was allowed these powers without having to explain them, the Corporation and this new experiment would be a howling success. That kind of mindless optimism has dogged the Government's steps for the last few years. It reminds me of the story of the so-called Socialist captain of the "Titanic", who explained to


his passengers that he had stopped to take on ice.

Sir J. Eden: If my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson), Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) had not made such a strong case in support of the Amendments, the Minister's speech would have been reason enough for supporting them.
The case which has been made out has emphasised the state of uncertainty and confusion in which we still find ourselves about so many aspects of the requirements which the Government propose to place on the Corporation.
The most important point, well-emphasised by my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest and Yeovil, have centred on the experimental nature of public dividend capital. The Minister has approached it as a matter of pride in that it was introduced a short time ago in the British Overseas Airways Corporation as an experiment for a short period of time and that, before that time had expired other corporations in the public sector had come forward asking for the same dispensation; for the same means, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest put it, for evading their obligations on the initial capital debt. This it is that underlies the purpose in bringing this matter forward, certainly in the eyes of the Government, of the Minister and of the Chief Secretary.
The experiment, by its very definition, should be limited. If the Minister wants it to continue, he should tell the House

Division No. 316.]
AYES
[10.9 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Currie, G. B. H.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Dean, Paul
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Balniel, Lord
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bell, Ronald
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Drayson, G. B.
Holland, Philip


Biffen, John
Eden, Sir John
Hordern, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Black, Sir Cyril
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hunt, John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Emery, Peter
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Body, Richard
Farr, John
Iremonger, T. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fisher, Nigel
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fortescue, Tim
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Gibson-Watt, David
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kershaw, Anthony


Carlisle, Mark
Goodhew, Victor
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gower, Raymond
Kitson, Timothy


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grant, Anthony
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Clark, Henry
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lane, David


Clegg, Walter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Corfield, F. V.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

fully his reasons for wishing it to continue. He should not seek to evade his obligations. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds rightly stressed how appalling it is that any Minister should brush aside his obligation to seek from the House further powers in a matter of this kind involving, as it does, such a very large sum of money. There is, therefore, every justification for shortening the period of the experiment, which the first Amendment seeks to do.

In addition to that, we find subsection (2)(a) wholly offensive. We would not wish to see this type of wide ranging power, no matter what its purpose, written into any Act. We do not like to give Ministers such sweeping, generalised, all-embracing powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil put it forcefully when he said that the Bill gives far too wide a discretion as it is, and this is a feature from which the Minister will get powers enabling him to enshrine as a permanency something which, in an earlier Clause, is introduced as an experiment. It is a wholly unjustified process. The Minister seeks not only to bring in an experiment but to run it indefinitely. Far too much self-perpetuating legislation is brought forward by this Government, and I strongly advise my hon. Friends to vote for the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 180.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Peel, John
stainton, Keith


MacArthur, Ian
Percival, Ian
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


McMaster, Stanley
Peyton, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Temple, John M.


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Pounder, Rafton
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Maddan, Martin
Pym, Francis
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Marten, Neil
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Mawby, Ray
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Waddington, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Ward, Dame Irene




Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Miscampbell, Norman
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Montgomery, Fergus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


More, Jasper
Royle, Anthony
Worsley, Marcus


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wright, Esmond


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Scott-Hopkins, James
Younger, Hn. George


Murton, Oscar
Sharples, Richard



Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Neave, Airey
Sinclair, Sir George
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Mr. Hector Monro.




NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Fowler, Gerry
McNamara, J. Kevin


Anderson, Donald
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Archer, Peter
Freeson, Reginald
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Garrett, W. E.
Manuel, Archie


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mapp, Charles


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marks, Kenneth


Barnes, Michael
Gregory, Arnold
Marquand, David


Bence, Cyril
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Binns, John
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mendelson, John


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce


Blackburn, F.
Hamling, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Harper, Joseph
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Boyden, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Haseldine, Norman
Molloy, William


Brooks, Edwin
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hazell, Bert
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Heffer, Eric S.
Moyle, Roland


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Henig, Stanley
Murray, Albert


Buchan, Norman
Hooley, Frank
Neal, Harold


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Dougas
Newens, Stan


Cant, R. B.
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Oakes, Gordon


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian


Chapman, Donald
Hynd, John
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Coleman, Donald
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Palmer, Arthur


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hul', W.)
Park, Trevor


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)



Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, Norman


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Judd, Frank
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kenyon, Clifford
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lawson, George
Probert, Arthur


Delargy, Hugh
Leadbitter, Ted
Rees, Merlyn


Dempsey, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dewar, Donald
Lee, John (Reading)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dickens, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dobson, Ray
Lamas, Kenneth
Rowlands, E.


Doig, Peter
Loughlin, Charles
Ryan, John


Dunn, James A.
Lubbock, Eric
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Eadie, Alex
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Ellis, John
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Ennals, David
MacColl, James
Silverman, Julius


Ensor, David
MacDermot, Niall
Small, William


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Macdonald, A. H.
Snow, Julian


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McGuire, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Fernyhough, E.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Finch, Harold
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackintosh, John P.
Varley, Eric G.


Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Forrester, John
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
White, Mrs. Eirene



Wallace, George
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Watkins, David (Consett)
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. John McCann and


Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Whitaker, Ben
Woof, Robert

Clause 7

POWER OF THE CORPORATION AND THE PUBLICLY-OWNED COMPANIES TO BORROW MONEY IN FOREIGN CURRENCY

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 5, line 30, leave out:
'with the consent of the Minister'.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we take the following Amendments:
No. 29, in page 5, line 31, leave out 'he' and insert 'the Minister'.
No. 30, in line 32, after 'Treasury', insert:
'by order (made by statutory instrument)'.

Mr. Ridley: The effect of these Amendments is to oblige the Minister to obtain Parliamentary approval for each tranche of foreign borrowing in which the Corporation indulges and to secure that this consent is to be obtained by means of a negative Order so that the House can, if it thinks fit, pray against it. There are a number of reasons why the House should keep close control on foreign borrowing by the Corporation.
It is curious that the Government have decided to write into each industry's Statute the power to borrow abroad. It would have been much more sensible if the Government had introduced a blanket provision enabling all the nationalised industries to do this: then the question could have been debated on its merits with Treasury Ministries and we should not have had to inject these highly complicated economic subjects into what is otherwise an industrial Bill dealing with one industry.
The economic situation is so deplorable and is changing so rapidly that the House would do well to keep the tightest control over this aspect of Government economic policy.
I thought that the more as I read and reread the Minister's speech in Committee. At one point he said:
Before a nationalised industry can borrow abroad it must explain its proposals and it has to obtain specific consent before it can borrow. The check is really made there."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee A. 26th June, 1969; c. 366.]

The check should be made here in the House. The right hon. Gentleman recognises that there is need to keep control and a close check on this borrowing, but in the typical way of this Government he abrogates to himself and the Government the job of keeping a check and leaves the House of Commons out of it. The Amendment would bring the House back into it.
The dangers are great. There will be a major upheaval of currency parities in the near future. It is now being openly said that there will be a revaluation of all the major currencies at some time this autumn. A point which has already been made but which cannot be made too often is that the House would be unwise to give consent to a borrowing in currencies which are clearly likely to be up-valued. If any currency is obviously likely to be up-valued, it is the German currency, the currency in which the Government have seen fit to do the first two borrowings for the other two industries.
This is a matter to which the House would probably object, if Orders were laid asking for permission for the Steel Corporation to borrow D-marks, since it is clear that within a few months we stand a good chance of losing a substantial proportion of the capital value of those D.-marks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) put down a sensible Amendment—which I am sad to note is not selected—which would put upon the Steel Corporation the duty only to borrow on such terms that the value of the sterling was guaranteed. This would have been a useful provision in the Bill, but, since we are not to debate it, the House ought at least to have a chance to scrutinise the currencies which it is proposed to borrow at any time.
I join issue with the Minister on something else which he said in Committee. Reading from his carefully prepared Treasury brief, he tried to make out that borrowing abroad by nationalised industries in order to spend here in England was not an increase of the money supply. He said:
The central Government will be borrowing more from the banks in respect of the Exchequer Equalisation Account but less in respect of the needs of the National Loans Fund. Money supplied remains unchanged by


the shift in the source of finance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 26th June 1969; c. 359.]
I do not know who put that brief into his hands. My information from economists who understand every ramification of the money supply argument is that that is not right. Provided that the money is borrowed abroad and is invested in this country—I agree that investing it abroad would invalidate the point—it is a definite increase in the money supply because the borrowings to match the Exchequer Equalisation Account do not come from increased taxation or increased borrowings from the public; they have always traditionally come by an increase in Treasury Bills, which is net inflation. Undoubtedly, if money is borrowed abroad and spent in this country either as capital or as income, that is a net addition to the money supply.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, strictly under the tutelage of Mr. Milton Friedman and puppet on that string that he is, has no alternative under the Letter of Intent but to increase taxation in order to mop up the extra money supply which is created by the foreign borrowing. So we can safely say that for every £1 million which the Steel Corporation borrows abroad we can look forward to an extra £1 million on taxation at some stage. Before we part with the Clause, that ought to be made abundantly clear. It is a pretty depressing prospect, because whatever happens, whether we borrow abroad or at home, it will mean an increase in taxation. This is one of the more substantial reasons against the extension of the public sector, which seems to be one of the Government's main objectives.
The borrowing abroad by the nationalised industries amounts to an increase in the Government's indebtedness in the world. There can be no doubt about this. The borrowings are backed by Treasury guarantee, and the Minister admitted this when he said:
In any case a Treasury guarantee is a better form of security, since it involves a pledge in the name of the Government …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 26th June, 1969; c. 360.]
So he has given a Treasury guarantee that all these loans will be underwritten by the Government. We are already at the I.M.F. a fourth-tranche borrower, along with several banana republics. We

are at the limit of our credit. I can see that it is a clever and convenient way around the limits imposed to send the nationalised industries, disguised as commercial concerns, to try to scrape up a few more millions in the lush money markets of Germany. That is the only place the right hon. Gentleman will get any. But it seems to me a fairly irresponsible policy. It is pawning the steel mills to foreigners so that the Government may obtain a little more tick to last out the week.
Although that may be necessary, due to the parlous state to which the Government have brought the economy, I still believe that it would be better to admit that that is what they are doing, and to say, "Every penny we can get helps, and if we can sell some of the assets of the steel mills abroad, we shall do so."

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing Clause 7, but three Amendments to it. The hon. Gentleman should link what he is saying with the three Amendments.

Mr. Ridley: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I was merely making the point that, for these reasons, it would be desirable if the House commented specifically on each slice of borrowing which is proposed.
The Press has commented unfavourably on our lack of alacrity to criticise the Government over the whole provision. The Financial Times said:
The heavy over-spending Britain has been indulging in since the present Government took over—last year's current account deficit was even larger than that 'inherited' from the Conservatives in 1964—has been financed largely by incurring massive debts with the International Monetary Fund and foreign central banks and selling off investments. Such rake's progress behaviour is not going to be made any more virtuous by being passed off as borrowing by State enterprises to finance development programmes.
Those are pretty harsh words. They are not mine but those of a financial commentator.
We feel that before recourse is had to this last desperate resort, the House should be presented with a cut-and-dried scheme, showing the amount of money, the rate of interest, the duration of the loan, and any other conditions attached to it. It could be laid before the House in the form of an Order which could be prayed against if the House did not


consider that it was the right time and right way to borrow money.
The Minister tried to write the whole matter off as if only small amounts of money, peanuts, are to be borrowed. I think that he said that he would not have thought that the I.M.F. would have the slightest interest in these small borrowings. The expression he used was that they would be only piddling in size. But a bad policy is not made any better by carrying it out on a piddling scale. If they are only to be piddling in size, it is not worth bothering the House to have the Clause in the Bill. I should be happy if the Minister said that at another stage he would take out the Clause. If that will not inconvenience him much because the amount of money is piddling, let us do without it. But if it is here for a substantial purpose—and we have already borrowed about £38 million abroad through other nationalised industries—the House should have its say on whether or not it approves the borrowings.
After all, the House is ultimately in control of finance. It is the House which votes supply to the Government and, through the Budget mechanism, votes domestic borrowing to the Government as well. Therefore, if the House is not to be allowed to comment on borrowing from abroad, it is deprived of one of its main weapons of control of the economic policies of the Government.
I would not say that there are not times and circumstances when it might conceivably be right to borrow abroad, but let us take each of these borrowings on their merits. Let us wait until they come and, as each opportunity for borrowing abroad arises, have each specific proposal laid before us in the form of an Order so that the House can debate it and, if it thinks fit, approve it. Without that weapon of Parliamentary control, my right hon. and hon. Friends would be unhappy to see this Clause go through.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Peyton: I am glad to support the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I hope he will not take it as anything other than a compliment to him if I touch again on some of the arguments he has adduced so powerfully.
What the Government are asking here is that nationalised industries should be allowed to tout round Europe and collect in little bits what the Government's credit does not allow them to collect in total. It is a disreputable and scruffy exercise. It is being suggested that the Corporation is looking for loans and credit in Europe already and that it has not as yet been wholly successful. If the Parliamentary Secretary, from the knowledge that must lie in his Department, assures us that that is untrue and that as yet the Corporation has not ventured into the Continental capital markets, I should be happy to accept his assurance.
It seems to me, however, that if the Corporation is already applying itself to this hunting ground in Europe, it has been rather jumping the gun. It would have been better if it had waited for the Bill to go through. It always seems odd that the Government should be so willing to allow these proud champions of Socialism, the nationalised industries, to see what crumbs are available in capital markets abroad when it would somehow be an offence against their chastity if they were to borrow at home.
It is evidently so important that a publicly-owned industry should not have the integrity of its equity besmirched by any element of private ownership that the Government prefer it to go overseas rather than make any offer to such facilities as remain available at home.
I echo the views of my hon. Friend about a reappraisal of currency parities. I do not like to use rude words like "devaluation", but it seems a bit odd that nationalised industries should be set loose to borrow from foreign countries in currencies which may be revalued upwards and thereby expose them to a fairly heavy and gratuitous penalty when it comes to repayment.
Another consideration is the present credit squeeze. The Opposition have always complained that the nationalised industries are largely excused from the pains and burdens which are piled one upon another on the shoulders of privately-owned industries. Nationalised industries are allowed to go scot free of many of the imposts and burdens which are reserved for private industries.
Today we have another example. In circumstances in which it is exceedingly


difficult for private enterprise companies to borrow money in this country, the nationalised industries are allowed to take such advantage as they may of the lingering residual elements of something which might be called the credit still appertaining to what is known as the British Government in overseas capital markets. I hope that it will not be thought rude to the British Steel Corporation if I say that some private concerns may find this fairly fierce in view of the heavy pressure and contribution to the intensification of the credit squeeze by the Corporation—

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: ; On a point of order. The hon. Member has not been speaking to the Amendment for the last 10 minutes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Perhaps the hon. Member will leave that matter to the Chair. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has been bordering on getting out of order, but I have listened very carefully and so far he has not done so.

Mr. Peyton: While I am naturally grateful—

Mr. James Tinn: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) gave his various reasons why power should not be given to the Corporation to borrow abroad and much of his speech was concerned with what he called the economic mismanagement by the Government. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is arguing the general principle. How far will the debate be allowed to broaden before it is regarded as a "Clause stand part" debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair does not rule hypothetically. The hon. Member may leave it to the Chair to see that hon. Members remain in order.

Mr. Peyton: I gladly conform to your very fair Ruling, Mr. Gourlay. I only wish that I could congratulate you on the pair of guides who have been wished upon you and have made your difficult task even harder.
The Amendments would provide that, to permit any foreign borrowing, the Treasury would have to come to the

House for an Order, and the House would be enabled to supervise this matter and to bear in mind the sort of material points with which we have dealt. I had hoped that my purpose would be clear to hon. Members opposite from a cursory reading of the Notice Paper, and I am sorry if I have caused you any embarrassment, Mr. Gourlay, through the unnecessary advice which they have given you.
If it were possible to supervise such overseas borrowing, the House could keep a check on, or seek an explanation of, the extent to which the Corporation enjoyed the best of both worlds, namely, playing a marked part in intensifying the credit squeeze upon private industry while doing all it could to relieve itself of pressure by borrowing overseas.
My hon. Friend, in a graphic but not unheard-of phrase, said that we were taking the example of various "banana republics" I do not want anything I say to be taken as meaning any disrespect to any of those personally engaged in the immensely difficult task of running and managing, which includes financing, the nationalised industries. But it is very regrettable that, when this country's credit stands as low as it does, for reasons which it would be painful and out of order to enumerate, the Government should arm yet another creature with the powers to go dragging through the coverts of Europe, to get some resources which the credit of its masters, the British Government, and this wretched lot of Ministers cannot command.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hordern: I support these Amendments because this country has borrowed enough at home and more than enough abroad. Our total indebtedness abroad now amounts to over £6,000 million. The difference between this sum and the sum which the last Socialist Government borrowed just after the war is that the latter could be repaid in about the year 2000. This sum of about £6,000 million has to be repaid within the next seven years. This is a monumental strain upon the country. It is far beyond the capacity of this Government to achieve. We should think very carefully before allowing the Government any further powers to borrow abroad.
The reason why they are seeking power to borrow abroad is that they have no


longer power to borrow at home. The Government could not sell or persuade British investors to buy Government debts and securities. This has been proved day after day—

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: What about private business? Is not that getting money from abroad?

Mr. Hordern: I was referring to Government borrowing at home. I was saying that the Government cannot borrow at home, in great contradistinction to private firms, in that, however difficult it has been made for them by this Government, people have been prepared to subscribe money to private industry, whereas nobody has been prepared to subscribe money for the Government. If one looks at the ability of the Government to manage their debt properly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating the Clause. The hon. Member must not argue the reason for the Clause. The hon. Member must adduce arguments why we should delete certain words or insert other words. In developing his argument he must not argue the principles of indebtedness.

Mr. Hordern: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you have taken the words practically out of my mouth. I was asking that the power to borrow abroad should be in the control of the House. We have already done far too much borrowing abroad. At least the powers given to the should be given to the House.
There is a further effect of borrowing abroad. Not only are the Government incapable of borrowing at home; we recognise why foreign countries want to lend us their money. Germany, for example, has a strong reserves position and she is only too anxious to lend us money. Why? Because she foresees a possible change in the level of exchange rates. The Government have landed us in a disgracefully dangerous position. We are having to repay £6,000 million in seven years—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is getting wide of the Amendment. The Amendment that he is referring to is Amendment No. 30, and his argument is much wider than the Amendment under discussion permits.

Mr. Hordern: Perhaps I was being a little provocative. I was pointing out that it is essential that the Government should ask the House for authority to borrow whenever they wish to do so. The Government must not be so deceived by the ease with which they can borrow abroad. They must recognise that it is not just a question of the rate of interest but that other countries are only too happy to lend us the money.
I turn to another aspect of the matter which was mentioned in Committee by the Minister himself—the important effect, if such borrowing is carried out, on domestic credit expansion—the money supply. This point was discussed somewhat shortly in Committee but the Minister referred to it in the absence of the Financial Secretary, who was indisposed. I am sorry that neither he nor the Chief Secretary is here to help the House tonight. These matters are somewhat complex. Perhaps we could get a clearer explanation from those Ministers than from others who are perhaps not quite so well versed in these affairs.
In any case, what we should like to know—certainly, what I should like to know—is what the right hon. Gentleman thinks is going to be the effect on the Exchange Equalisation Account, because it is quite clear—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Member is very wide of the Amendment. Perhaps he would address his remarks more specifically to the Amendment.

Mr. Hordern: I am very sorry. I was of course trying to do so. I was referring, as narrowly as I could, to the question of the power of this House to decide whether this foreign borrowing should be done or not, and I was merely mentioning the disadvantage if we allow this power to be given to the Government and to the Steel Corporation to borrow money abroad, without having some sort of check upon them, and the dangers of doing so.
The primary danger, of course, is the increase in the level of the money supply, because the effect of the increase in the Exchange Equalisation Account is that to the extent that they receive foreign pounds they have to issue Treasury bills which act as the basis of


the banking system, and to that extent the level of the money supply is increased, and to that extent the Government have, either by taxation or by further genuine borrowing, if they can, to meet that situation. That is another reason why this House should have the power, if it wishes, to allow or disallow the Government's power to borrow abroad.

Mr. R. B. Cant: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do not think the hon. Member should tempt the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), because even though he is just within the bounds of order, I am having great difficulty in relating his remarks to the specific Amendment. One must, in arguing for this Amendment, state the reasons why the Government should not have this power, but without going into the principles in too much detail.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order. We did not hear the point which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) was going to make. He may have been going to tempt my hon. Friend hack into the paths of order. May we hear the point he was going to make before he is ruled out of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) gives way.

Mr. Hordern: I think I must.

Mr. Cant: Before the hon. Member reaches the Amendment may I ask him if he would resolve a paradox? If an import surplus leading to loss of reserves—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was rather afraid the hon. Member might tempt the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) out of order.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. If I may say so with the greatest respect, a totally unwarranted attempt—I am sure, an unsuccessful attempt—is being made by hon. Members opposite to brainwash the Chair into suggesting that my hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair cannot accept any reflection upon the Chair either from one hon. Member or another.

Mr. Peyton: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be most unfortunate if there were any suggestion that the Chair was being influenced by either side of the House.

Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order. I am so sorry. If I said anything which could even remotely be held to be disrespectful to the Chair I withdraw it unreservedly, but, in fact, I said that an attempt, which I was sure was totally unsuccessful, was being made by hon. Members opposite to brainwash the Chair, and I said it was unsuccessful and I meant it was unsuccessful. The point I wished to put to you very strongly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that here we are dealing with a very major borrowing powers Bill, with a skeleton Report stage, and my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), very reasonably, is putting the point that here a novel power is being given to a nationalised industry to borrow overseas. He was suggesting, as this Amendment suggests, that the Government, before that power is evercised, should be obliged to come to the House for approval. The background arguments which my hon. Friend is putting forward are very germane and, with the greatest respect, I think that he has not been so wide of the mark as hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the point of order raised by the hon. Gentleman. Some arguments which have been adduced are germane to the Amendments. The difficulty the Chair has is in deciding how wide the arguments should range, and on occasions I have had to pull up the hon. Gentleman for going too wide.

Mr. Hordern: The Amendments with which we are concerned are necessarily technical, because the process of borrowing abroad is technical, You and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, understand, but hon. Gentlemen opposite, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant), have difficulty in understanding these abstruse matters, so it is not surprising that they think I am out of order. You and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know very well that I am absolutely in order.
A further reason for looking carefully at these powers for borrowing abroad is


the present interest rate. In 1963, interest payable abroad stood at £444 million. In five years that amount has risen by a further £330 million, so that the annual interest charge overseas is well over £800 million, and that is an astonishing sum. We must look carefully before we allow any expansion of that debt. The size of the debt and the rate of interest are continually increasing.
This leads me to the further point that one should consider the level of interest rates and their possible trend. With the development in the United States and with the increase in the level of the Federal Reserve rate and the Euro-dollar rate, it is most unlikely that this country will be able to stay altogether outside that trend of increasing interest rates. The likelihood, therefore, is that this indebtedness and the interest rates abroad will continue to increase.
There are some local authorities which already have power to borrow abroad but find it difficult to do so because of inability to pay the high interest rates. Suppose local authorities take to borrowing overseas? It will not be a question of a few tens of millions of £s but of hundreds of millions of £s, which will be a very serious matter.
The House must say quite clearly that this is enough; we have had enough of this borrowing and we want to have the powers provided by the Amendment to check the power of the nationalised industries to borrow abroad.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I moved an Amendment in Committee on this matter, and we discussed whether or not, when the British Steel Corporation wishes to borrow money overseas, it should come to the House of Commons. The need for it to do so increases as the amount of money borrowed overseas by the British Steel Corporation or other nationalised industries increases.
We elucidated some information in Committee. It was argued—this is column 358—that borrowing abroad by the nationalised industries increased the supply of money and injected money into the public sector. He also referred to the procedure adopted by the Treasury.
Reference has also been made to the Minister's account of what happens when a nationalised industry borrows abroad. It thereby increases the country's longer-term in and is offset by a reduction n our shorter-term liabilities. This depends on the amount of money so far borrowed abroad by the nationalised industries.
I believe the figure has been described as peanuts or a piddling sum, but it was estimated at £40 million, as one can see from column 367 of the proceedings in Standing Committee. This is small in relation to the interest which has to be paid.
The point that concerns us is whether or not the British Steel Corporation should report to the House on these matters. We know that the United Steel Company obtained a dollar loan, but this was not a loan, of course, to the British Steel Corporation. This matter was referred to in Standing Committee.
We reminded the Minister in Committee that much of our present difficulties are due to the fact that if the B.S.C. wants money it must go to the Treasury for it or abroad. Yesterday, in reply to Questions the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there had been a considerable increase in the amount of investment in this country by overseas industries. If the B.S.C. had not been nationalised and had needed equity capital to expand, it could have gone to the market at home or to overseas markets. It is now by the very act of nationalisation being denied that source of funds.
One constricting effect of nationalisation is that this great industry must borrow subject to a Treasury guarantee. Every penny borrowed abroad is subject to Treasury guarantee and increases our international indebtedness. The Minister replied in great detail on this matter in Committee. At a time when we are suffering from a credit squeeze and when we as a nation must go cap in hand for every penny we require, it is necessary to support the Amendment.

Mr. Michael Alison: I wish to address my remarks to Amendment No. 30 which seeks, after the word "Treasury", to insert the words "by order (made by statutory instrument)". Between those two phrases lies the whole vast dimension of the conflict between


Treasury orthodoxy, as we have seen it elaborated and demonstrated over the last three or four years, and Parliamentary responsibility as we here in the House of Commons understand it. The Amendment attempts to make Treasury orthodoxy, or lack of it, accountable to Parliament.
It has been dramatically demonstrated in the last three or four months, if not for slightly longer, that there is an urgent need for the principal Ministers of the Treasury to come to the House in order to justify important departures in Treasury economic thinking or in Government policy. These departures are made plain to organisations abroad but often they are not made sufficiently plain to the electorate and to Parliament here at home.
Germane to the whole concept of making Treasury Ministers come to Parliament on matters affecting foreign borrowing was the fact that in the House on 25th June the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt it necessary to explain the significance of the commitments we were undertaking in respect of obligations entered into by the country to the I.M.F.
The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in effect, joined the Treasury to Parliament in this important connection. The right hon. Gentleman introduced an important new concept in the matter of foreign borrowing and its effect or lack of effect upon our internal affairs. He called this new concept d.c.e., or domestic credit expansion, and he justified its introduction by a rather striking paradox, to which I think the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) was about to draw our attention. It was that a balance of payments deficit is in itself obviously rather unsatisfactory, but paradoxically the way in which we examine it, analyse it and present it, makes it show up in the money supply aspect as a rather beneficial result, namely, a drop in the money supply. We all know the reason for this.
The Minister of Power should appreciate that the Chancellor's argument in justifying Treasury policy in its money supply context operates in the obverse direction if there is a balance of payments surplus. I hope I carry the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central with me—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman is in order in making incidental references to Treasury policy in saying why he supports the Amendment, but he must not argue the case in too much detail, which is what he is doing at the moment. We are not discussing Treasury policy on this Amendment.

Mr. Alison: The Treasury is deliberately introduced into the Amendment in respect, I take it, of the necessity for the Treasury to come to the House to justify its policy, because we feel that the House should have an opportunity to consider some of these matters—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not to justify policy, but to justify reasons for new borrowing powers, which is slightly different.

Mr. Alison: Then I will pursue the argument more along those lines.
One of the unavoidable corollaries of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us on 25th June is this. When a nationalised industry borrows abroad, the sum involved represents an inflow of foreign currency. When that happens, there is to that extent an increase in the money supply, since the purchase of all foreign currency coming into the United Kingdom has to be financed by the Government through the Exchange Equalisation Account. When the British Steel Corporation borrows abroad and receives foreign currency, that necessarily has to be sold to the Exchange Equalisation Account, and the Exchange Equalisation Account has to hand over sterling to the British Steel Corporation. As a result of losing that sterling, the Exchange Equalisation Account has to let its stock of Treasury Bills run off, and the Account in turn has to ask the Government to top up its supply of sterling. In turn, the Government have to go to the money market to recoup their own losses to the Account. All this results in a real increase in the money supply, and it always happens when there is an inflow of foreign exchange.
The Government are casually taking steps to organise matters so that we should suffer an increase in the money supply at a time when we are in deficit in our balance of payments. They are


making for an artificial inflow of foreign currency, and increasing the money supply at precisely the wrong moment.

Mr. Ridley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister was at pains to argue in a contrary sense in Committee, reading from the Treasury brief? Does that not alarm my hon. Friend even more?

Mr. Alison: It alarmed me when I heard the quote from the Treasury brief, which was the argument that the Corporation, to the extent that it borrowed abroad, pro tanto, would borrow less from the Government; but the Corporation does not borrow only from the Government. It borrows also from the banks and from the public on its own stocks. So that is not a satisfactory answer to the problem we are raising, which is that to the extent that the Corporation reduces its bank overdraft, on which it pays an extremely high percentage, and brings in foreign currency, on which it pays a lower rate of interest but raises the money supply, it does two things to the detriment of the economy at the same time—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is still arguing the point rather too specifically.

Mr. Alison: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is very difficult unless one is fully au fait with some of the complexities of the argument, to avoid doing so when in the Notice Paper we have the word "Treasury" used in the sense of a synomym for "Government," and references to Parliament. But I certainly take the point, and in any case I was drawing to a conclusion.
There is a double fault in what the Government propose if they do not give Parliament an opportunity to debate in the way I am modestly trying to debate now. They are making the double fault of simultaneously increasing the money supply by an inflow of foreign currency and generating expenditure by the Corporation in the United Kingdom with no offsetting savings in the United Kingdom, because the savings have been made by foreigners supplying us with foreign currency. Two double-barrelled simultaneous injections of inflation should be something which the Treasury should justify by an Order laid before Parlia-

ment which could be examined by hon. Members such as, on this side, my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) and, on the other side, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant), who are interested in these matters.
I beg the Minister not to make the mistake that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made in thinking that he can carry on dealing with foreign creditors and dealers without coming to the House. The Chancellor got himself into very hot water by dealing with the I.M.F. without consulting Parliament. Let the Minister make provision for the Treasury Ministers to justify this kind of borrowing to the House.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: These are three very important Amendments, because they are concerned with checks on overseas borrowing. On a separate issue in Committee we raised this question, and the Minister gave an answer which, while it may have satisfied him, showed that we were talking on different wave lengths. He said:
The checks on the extent of the limited borrowing overseas are the Treasury and myself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 26th June 1969; c. 366.]
I do not think that our experience of the management of the economy in recent years has been such that I or any other reasonable person would regard a check by the Treasury and the Minister as being in itself adequate to ensure that everything went well in the economy. In these Amendments we have tried to provide an additional check by saying that the Corporation, through the Minister, must come to this House of Commons to ask permission to borrow abroad.
I have a number of reasons for thinking that this check is important, and one of the most important is that at present those organisations, financial or otherwise, which are thinking of borrowing abroad look only to the places where there are opportunities to do so, and this at the present time means Germany—

Mr. John Mendelson: They all have the same briefs.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Taylor: I assure the hon. Member that if he goes through the debates he will


see that, rather than speaking from briefs, some of us have tried to think seriously about these matters. It is an absolute tragedy for the country that when we discuss these important matters there is only a handful of Lobby fodder opposite who cannot understand the seriousness of the issues involved. [Interruption.]

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have rightly shown that you wish to keep the discussion in order and to get proceedings on the Bill advanced as quickly as may be. I cannot believe that it is helpful to you in your difficult task to have a series of noisy and rude interruptions, which may be characteristic of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), who remains seated throughout the debate. I do not see how that can help you or the House to get the Bill through as quickly as desirable. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), who was making a perfectly reasonable point, will have your protection from the violations of a rather hooligan nature of the hon. Member for Penistone, who succeeds in amusing no one but himself.

Mr. Mendelson: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair endeavours to protect hon. Members on both sides of the House impartially.

Mr. John Mendelson: All that I was doing was seeking to commiserate with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) in that he came in late to the debate and his brief was therefore rather stale.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member for Penistone is being unduly provocative for I certainly have no brief on this matter. Most hon. Members who sat in the Committee tried to make sense of this Bill, which has very dangerous implications. Out of courtesy to some of my hon. Friends who did not have the advantage of being on the Committee, we wish to say something on Report. The Minister knows how important this is. He has listened very carefully to this discussion.
As the hon. Member for Sheffield Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) suggested, one important reason why we should have this check on borrowing abroad by the

British Steel Corporation is that we should look where the money can be borrowed. Where the money is clearly available is in countries within the E.E.C. At the present time it would be unwise if we were seen to be in a position of pawning our assets to nations of the E.E.C. while entry to the Community is being considered. I and some other hon. Members have strong reservations on this issue. It would be extremely regrettable if at such a time we were to put ourselves into the difficult position without Parliamentary control of being in such great indebtedness to countries of the European Economic Community.
The second reason why we should have a control and check on borrowing abroad is not any constitutional issue but because experience has shown that this Government are just too good at it. Unfortunately we have not with us the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or any Treasury Minister. I do not want to be disrespectful to them. They are very able and have shown brilliance in going to almost any foreign capital to get a loan. Unfortunately, as a nation we may have to pay for that in years to come, but they have shown enormous ability, despite our difficult position, to tout round the capitals of the world to get foreign loans. This is a tribute to their ingenuity and competence, but we do not want unreasonably to add to the burden of future generations. There is already an exodus because of our economic problems and high taxation. It would be unreasonable to indulge in more and more foreign borrowing. Precisely because the Government have been too successful in it there should be some Parliamentary check.
The third reason why there should be a check on borrowing abroad by the nationalised industries is that, unfortunately, the nationalised industries have shown an ability to eat up capital with an almost insatiable appetite. Is it generally realised that the nationalised industries, since Labour came to power, have been writing off capital at more than £1 million a day?

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourtay): Order. I was about to interrupt the hon. Member for Glasgow,


Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and say that, in referring to the general indebtedness of nationalised industries, he is somewhat wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Taylor: I have no wish to get out of order, so I will leave the point, except to say that, in view of this insatiable appetite, there should be control at home and abroad, particularly abroad.
Another important reason why there should be control on foreign borrowing is that, if the Minister has to seek the approval of the House to foreign borrowings, he will have at the same time to say why he wants to borrow money abroad. We should have such control on what could be an unreasonable appetite for empire building on the part of some sections of the Corporation about which we have heard and read. In view of what has happened in Britain, it would be bad if we were to allow the Corporation without restraint to indulge in a campaign of investing in activities abroad when in many cases it has enough difficulty in controlling the problems of the home industry. The House should have the opportunity of discussing any proposition for investing in steel works or, indeed, in ore supplies abroad.
I do not under-estimate the potential for investment in the steel industry abroad. There is the fantastic example of Australian ore supplies: in 1966 exports were only 230,000 tons; last year they leaped to 9 million tons. The Amendment seeks to ensure that before the Corporation invests abroad the approval of the House should be sought. If it was just a piddling amount, as the Minister said, there would be no need for such strict control, but what guarantee is that there it will be a piddling amount? The Bill extends the borrowing limit to £650 million. I do not suggest that the Corporation has any specific proposals for investing £100 million or £200 million abroad, but the borrowing power is in the Bill. It is possible under this Clause that all the money or a substantial part of it could be borrowed abroad. It is precisely because of that that we want to restrain this power.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman decide whether he is talking about borrowing abroad or investing

abroad? For the past five minutes, he has been talking about overseas investment.

Mr. Taylor: That is an important point which serves to illustrate what I mean. If the Steel Corporation proposed to the Government that it should borrow abroad £20 million, £30 million or £40 million, I should want to know whether the money was to be used for investment in our own industry or for investment abroad. The hon. Gentleman has raised a valid point. He should think about it a little. We know that he has the ability to think about these things, and I hope that he will.
Will the Government be borrowing abroad through the Steel Corporation simply to dodge the difficulties in home borrowing or will they be doing it for investment abroad? Every time the Steel Corporation says that it wants to borrow abroad, I shall want to know on behalf of my constituents—I am sure that the hon. Member for Brightside would want to know, too—whether the intention is to expand our home steel industry or merely to dodge the difficulties of credit supply in Britain. Only yesterday, we learned how even the poor old National Savings Movement finds its withdrawals exceeding deposits by £2 million a day. In these circumstances, the House should have an opportunity to discuss the matter and see what is happening.
The Minister gave quite a thorough reply in Committee, but he did not deal with this point. How would he have an opportunity of seeing what the foreign-borrowed money would be used for—for home consumption or for investment abroad?
We are aware of the fantastic potential abroad, and we are aware also of our own potential at home, but we want to know what the money would be used for. It would be wrong and against the character of all that the Minister said in Committee if this power were exercised merely as a dodge to increase our foreign indebtedness, not as a natural financial transaction of the Steel Corporation.
The currencies borrowed would be those likely to increase in value. Not even the hon. Member for Brightside would suggest that the Steel Corporation would consider borrowing money from India, Indonesia, Ghana, the Yemen or


countries like that. Far from borrowing from countries whose currencies are not stable, it would think of borrowing from countries with stable currencies. This gives add point to the need for the Amendment. There must be a check and control.
If we do not adopt the Amendment, we may be giving preferential treatment to the nationalised industries over the private sector. If a private industry wants to extend its credit today, either by foreign borrowings or by home borrowings, it is subject to the discipline of difficult credit restrictions. There is a danger that if we provide these two open channels for the nationalised industries without the check of Parliament to ensure fair play there will be a very unjust and unfair situation.
11.30 p.m.
Surely, when about half of our productive resources seem to be under the control of the Government, we have a special responsibility to ensure fair play and that no special privileges are given to the public sector as opposed to the private setor. Many of us feel that the dice are heavily loaded in favour of the public sector and that the burdens on the private sector are increasing all the time. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members opposite do not like this. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) is conducting himself disgracefully, as he usually Joes. He makes no positive contribution to our discussions. On the contrary, he tries to be disruptive and gives the impression that he is not following the debate, otherwise he would realise how serious and important a matter this was.
In the Amendment we try to ensure fair play. The Government have nothing to lose by accepting it. If they had a proposal for borrowing the piddling sum which the Minister suggested he would be interested in or a substantial sum, all that they would have to do would be to argue the case in the House. They will find that when the national interest is concerned we rise above party politics.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that this industry requires an injection of capital to make it more viable and more competitive with steel industries overseas? If so, from where does he suggest the capital should come?

Mr. Taylor: I should love to deal with that point. If the hon. Gentleman had been a little more talkative in Committee, we could have gone into it firmly. We on this side dealt with these points thoroughly, and the Government found themselves in considerable difficulty in answering them.
We do not want to add to the special privileges in the public sector. It is only fair and reasonable that the Government should justify foreign borrowings.

Mr. Tinn: The hon. Gentleman argues that the Amendment would provide a safeguard against preferential treatment being given to the public sector by requiring the Minister to come to the House before authorising a loan. If the hon. Gentleman believes so strongly in equality of treatment as between the public and private sectors, I am puzzled why he did not feel called upon to urge that the Minister of Technology should require approval before giving assistance to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We might get out of order if we pursued that.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) made an unworthy and irrelevant interjection. Any nationalised or private industry involved in borrowing money abroad should be subject to the same disciplines. I make no exceptions. I try to be consistent.
All that we are trying to do is to effect something which hon. Members opposite obviously feel is of no concern, and that is Parliamentary control of foreign borrowing. We have seen from some of their actions recently that they hold our democratic system and all it is based on in utter contempt. They have shown that today. In this Amendment we are simply seeking to ensure fair play and to introduce the restraint of Parliament. This is important. When the time came, the Government would find that, when the national interest and the steel industry were concerned, we on these benches rise above party politics and discuss matters fairly and reasonably. At present we have only the check of the Treasury and the Minister. That is not enough. Therefore, we should accept the Amendment.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am glad to follow what was, at this late hour, a distinguished speech by my hon. Friend the


Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). What a contrast it was with the outpourings of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). I never know whether it is worse to hear him from his seat or on his feet. Neither is a pleasant experience.

Mr. John Mendelson: We have not heard the hon. Gentleman at his best. In the steel nationalisation Committee he never sat down without having spoken for 48 minutes.

Mr. Griffiths: Two minutes from my hon. Friend is worth two hours from the hon. Gentleman.
This debate, which I have listened to with great interest, has been about accountability, the accountability of the Government to Parliament. Throughout our discussions this evening it has been obvious that the Minister of Power regards it as somehow inconvenient that he should have to account for his actions to the House. Here he goes again, setting off with his companion, the Chairman of the nationalised Steel Corporation, with their begging bowl, tramping around Europe, picking up a few guilders here, a few francs there and possibly a mark or two on the side, and he expects that he should do this without coming here and accounting for his humiliating activities.
I feel a need for him to tell us what he is up to, because this country and his Government are now under the surveillance of our international bailiffs, the International Monetary Fund. I wonder whether the purpose of this borrowing power is not in practice to pull the wool over the eyes of the I.M.F., to pretend that the Government are keeping down the creation of new borrowings in this country while bringing them in at the back door.
It is very important, when the Government have committed us to the International Monetary Fund to the extent that they have, that the House should make sure that they do not once again slip away from the obligations they have taken on. The obligations the Government have laid on this country, unfortunately, become the responsibility of the House and not solely of the Government. The House has a very keen interest in seeing, if we can, that they live up to them. Therefore, we must have accoun-

tability. What I am asking for first is virtually a letter of intent, from the Government to the House, in respect of their proposed foreign borrowings. We are entitled to that letter of intent, and to keep the Government up to it. What we want to know is how much they will borrow, where, and on what terms. All we are told in the Bill is that the Corporation can take on these new liabilities with the consent of the Treasury and the Minister. Their consent is no comfort to us.
I now come to the details of the Amendments. My hon. Friends seek to eliminate the words
with the consent of the Minister.
That is a very good idea, because if Lord Melchett and his Board seek to obtain funds abroad—and I see a good deal in favour of that—they should borrow on their own responsibility, as commercial judges of what is appropriate. They should not have to obtain the Minister's consent. I am sure that it is right to blot out those words.
We also seek to insert the words
… by order (made by Statutory Instrument)
after the word "Treasury". That is the heart of the Amendments. It would impose on the Government the accountability of which I have spoken. In seeking greater accountability by the Government to Parliament, I am not opposing the principle of what they seek to do here. I could hardly do that because, in 1965, on a Bill relating to the borrowing powers of the National Coal Board, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Cold-field (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) and I moved an Amendment to give the Board power to go to the international capital markets in order to acquire this kind of new money. We argued strongly and eloquently for the Amendment but the then Minister of Power turned it down. The debate is to be found in HANSARD for 2nd December, 1965. There are three or four columns of eloquent argument in favour of nationalised corporations being allowed to go abroad for money, although under much stricter conditions than the right hon. Gentleman proposes here.
Now the Government have changed their minds and want this power. Thus it would be wrong for me, having proposed such a course in the past, to


object to the principle now. I see advantages in tapping new capital markets—we have not enough of our own—and advantages in using such assets as the nationalised industries have to borrow against. That is sensible. We should also be encouraging foreign capital to come here. If foreigners believe that it is a good investment in British steel, let them make it, but they will be taking a much greater risk than I should be inclined to take.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart referred to the Common Market. He and I do not necessarily share the same views about that, but I can see some advantages in British steel moving into the European Community.

Mr. John Mendelson: Out of order.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: So, in seeking greater accountability to Parliament—

Mr. Alison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) to shout "Out of order" when my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) is in order? Is it not out of order to shout from a sitting position "Out of order" when my hon. Friend is in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): It is not desirable for any hon. Member to interrupt from a sitting position.

Mr. John Mendelson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is about time that hon. Members who discuss with other hon. Members their respective attitudes to the Common Market were told that they are completely out of order in doing so on this Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) to instruct the Chair. The Chair listens very carefully and it is sometimes in order for hon. Members to make incidental references. Immediately an hon. Member does more than that, the Chair will call him to order.

Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand the very natural temptation of the Chair to listen to what is going on on

this side with a great deal more attention because it is so much more attractive and interesting, but if every now and again you could strengthen your resolve to the disagreeable extent of digesting the interjections which issue from the mouth of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), we should be grateful because we know that this would be followed by a stern rebuke.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may be that interjections are more audible in the hon. Gentleman's part of the House than they are to the Chair.

Mr. Tinn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is difficult to understand how it appears to be in order for hon. Members opposite to advise the Chair and not for me and my hon. Friends to do so.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not accepting advice from either side of the House.

Mr. John Mendelson: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When Mr. Deputy Speaker is on his feet, hon. Members must remain seated. The Chair is quite competent to give Rulings and has done so.

Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order. Nobody is making any statements about what the Chair should do or should not do. But every hon. Member has a perfect right to suggest in a debate that the Opposition are engaged in deliberate time-wasting repetition of a tedious character. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said seven times that he wanted control by Parliament. It was tedious repetition and we on this side of the House are as entitled as hon. Members opposite to point this out to the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is within the competence of any hon. Member to raise a point of order, but it is for the Chair to rule, and the Chair has not so far ruled.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your protection against a Parliamentary pest.
I was saying that while I cannot object in principle to what the Government seek


to do here, it is important that Parliament should be told regularly and closely what they are up to, for reasons which I did not have the opportunity to put before the hon. Member for Penistone began lecturing.
Over recent years, there has been a particularly instructive experience in West Germany on this very point. The German Länder have had the power to go to the international capital market to borrow, and they have done so, because of their special independence and autonomy within the German State, in very large sums. One of the results of this was that there came into being a near financial crisis in, of all places, the rich Federal Republic, and it arose in large measure because it was unable at the centre to control the very large borrowings of the individual Länder.
The experience of the German Parliament is important here. It became increasingly apparent throughout the later years of the 1950s and the early 1960s that the lack of accountability to the Federal Government for the extensive borrowings of the German Länder was creating severe financial difficulties, and that is why I want to urge—

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that relations in a federal constitution in Germany are wholly irrelevant to the Amendment and I ask you to rule references to them out of order.

Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order. We on this side of the House are getting a little tired of having the time of the House wasted and your admirable chairmanship challenged, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on occasion after an occasion by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). Will you please protect my hon. Friends, who are trying to make constructive speeches, from the ravages of the hon. Member, who has done nothing but come here and try to interrupt the progress of orderly debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly competent of any hon. Member to raise a point of order. My reply to the hon. Member for Penistone is that up to this point I have not seen fit to rule the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) out of order.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am most grateful to you again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your protection against a Parliamentary pest.
My analogy is fair. This was the practical experience of the German Government and the German Parliament in finding that the lack of accountability to the central Exchequer and to their legislature for the extensive foreign borrowings by the German Länder—they could easily have been nationalised corporations—placed the German State in great difficulty. We should beware of something similar happening in this country. That is a practical experience—

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: When the hon. Member reads his speech in HANSARD tomorrow, he will find, I think, that, in the early part, he was quite happy with Lord Melchett borrowing abroad without asking the Minister's permission. In the second part, however, he has been talking about accountability, which leads me to believe that he does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Member, who takes a keen interest in this subject, must have misheard me. I support the Amendment because the Steel Corporation should not require the Minister's consent to make arrangements for loans. I accept, of course, that, when these arrangements have been made, the terms and sources and amounts should be reported in detail to the House. I hope that the hon. Member will understand the distinction between making commercial arrangements for loans and actually getting Parliament's approval to bring them into effect. It is plain that he did not understand that distinction, however—

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: But how can the Minister bring such arrangements to Parliament, when the chairman of the nationalised industry does not have to ask his permission to borrow abroad?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I did not say that the Chairman of the Steel Corporation should be able to borrow abroad without consent. I said that it was right that he should be able to get in touch with the bankers of Europe, and "tee up" the arrangement and then go to the Minister, and that the Minister should then ask


the House if we agree. That is a perfectly normal distinction to anyone with commercial experience.
The further reason why it is crucially important that the Minister should have to bring Statutory Instruments here for discussion is that we should know from which countries these sums are to be borrowed. I may even catch the attention of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) here, because it is hon. Members on his side of the House more than any others who are particular about which nations they trade with. For example, the hon. Member chooses his partners on moral grounds. He thinks that it is all right to trade with Cuba but not with Spain, with Communist China and Soviet Russia but not with Greece and South Africa. He is entitled to his point of view, although it is damaging to the country—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is now getting rather wide in his submission in support of the Amendment. Perhaps he would come a little more specifically to the Amendment, without ranging over the principles.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I was giving an example of the importance of Parliament being able to discuss the sources of the money which it will be possible for the Corporation to borrow. I was illustrating by my analogy that hon. Members opposite, more than anyone else, want to pick and choose those countries with whom they are prepared to do business. They could not do that without the Amendment, because then arrangements could be made without regular consultation of Parliament. You will agree, I think. Mr. Gourlay, that this is a proper point to advance in support of the Amendment.
The third reason in support of it is the danger of incurring debts abroad which the nation as a whole cannot afford. The Government have already over-borrowed abroad. They have taken us beyond our short-term capacity to repay. They should not be allowed to take on any more debt without having to justify to the House every guilder, franc or mark they want to borrow. It is not good enough for the Minister to indicate throughout our debate that he finds this all something of a tedious bore. I am

sorry that he should find it so. He should realise that his powers—if he has any—arise from this House and nowhere else. He must account to the House at every stage for his use of these powers.
My hon. Friends have already raised the question of the danger of shifting exchange rates, which might leave us in a position where we had to repay moneys borrowed at much steeper exchange gradients than those at which we borrowed. My hon. Friend spoke of the possibility of the revaluation of the German mark this autumn. The Government have already increased our external debts in hard currency by about 12 per cent., due to devaluation alone. It is not good enough for the Corporation to be enabled to take on new debts against a shifting background of incompetent economic policies that might land us in still further devaluation, and therefore to load upon the suffering British taxpayer yet more liabilities that Parliament will not have had a chance to discuss in advance. I am strongly in favour of the Amendments. I hope that the Government will accept them. They have nothing to lose by that.
Do you not find it strange, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Government should impose upon ordinary citizens a £50 travel allowance which they may spend in foreign currencies abroad while, at the same time, the Corporation will be able to borrow any sums it likes?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The Chair does not find such matters strange. The Chair has no opinion in such matters.

Mr. Griffiths: I am glad that you have answered my question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I can now only state rather than ask: I find the contrast between holding down the ordinary citizen to £50 in foreign exchange and the permission for the Corporation to borrow large sums without having to justify such borrowing to Parliament nauseating in the extreme and the hallmark of Socialist Government.

Mr. Freeson: I am sure that the hon. Member feels all the better for having got that off his chest. I am in some difficulty in seeking to reply to the debate, on two grounds. First, if I were to seek to reply to most of the points that have been raised I should be soon out of order,


and would probably remain out of order for most of my speech. However, there is another more pointed difficulty—

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. It is surely a little odd that on top of all the interventions we have had, of a very irrelevant kind, from back benchers opposite, a junior Minister should rise to his feet at this hour of the night and challenge not only the whole of the Opposition but the Chair with the allegation that the whole debate is out of order and therefore that he has an excuse for not answering it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not take that meaning from the Minister's remarks. It may be that the Minister intended to go much wider in reply to the points raised than I would have allowed.

Mr. Freeson: That was the sole point of my observation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My other difficulty is that the simple answer to most of the words spoken about the need for accountability either to the Government or to Parliament on the part of the Corporation is that the Opposition themselves—although obviously not aware of it—have not proposed any parliamentary control over borrowing by the Corporation in foreign currency, as I shall seek to show.
12 midnight.
I would congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) on one point at least. So far as I can recall, during this long debate he was the only Member to refer to the particular Amendment before us, and to which the other two are related, when he referred to Amendment No. 28. This Amendment, if it were accepted, would remove from the Bill the need for the Corporation to get the Minister's consent to borrow in foreign currency. It seems to me to be a reduction in accountability, not an increase in it.
However, since most of the remarks which were made did not relate to that Amendment I will turn to the one which did give rise to most discussion, and that was Amendment 30.

Sir J. Eden: Since the hon. Gentleman appears to think he has demolished Amendment No. 28 in the way he suggests, I would ask him just to clarify

the observations he has just made. If the words "with the consent of the Minister" were to be deleted—and that Amendment has to be taken in conjunction with the other, subsequent, Amendments—the subsection amended by the three Amendments would read:
The Corporation may, from such person and on such terms as the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury by order … specify, borrow, in a currency other than sterling.…
This would allow the Corporation still to borrow in currencies other than sterling, but these words, supplanting the words "with the consent of the Minister", would mean the Minister would come before this House to seek the approval of this House.

Mr. Freeson: I was coming to that further Amendment, if I may be allowed to continue the reply. I was about to answer precisely the point raised. The Amendment would delete any requirement on the part of the Corporation to seek the Minister's consent. There is in that Amendment, by itself, at least a relaxation—

Sir J. Eden: rose

Mr. Freeson: I am going to link this point with the one which has just been made, if I may complete a paragraph of my speech.

Sir J. Eden: The only point I was trying to emphasise was, that the hon. Gentleman was picking on one Amendment and taking it separately. He cannot fairly do that. All three Amendments are interdependent, and the two that follow are consequential on the first.

Mr. Freeson: That is exactly the point I was just making. If the hon. Member will be a little patient I was just about to point out that the Amendments would not increase Parliamentary control at all. First, the first Amendment would delete the requirement to seek the consent of the Minister, so to that extent, by the first Amendment, there would be a relaxation of control.
I would ask the hon. Member to listen carefully to what I am saying. I would point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite that on Amendment No. 30, which they have argued would establish parliamentary control, they are wrong. The


mere fact that something has to be done by Statutory Instrument does not mean that it has to be laid before Parliament, let alone debated. To give Parliament the opportunity to debate an instrument would require a statement in the Bill that it is subject to the affirmative or negative Resolution procedure. Without that there is no Parliamentary control.
The only effect of the Amendment as it stands on the Notice Paper now, I must point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite who have supported it, would be that the Minister would be required to publish a Statutory Instrument by means of H.M.S.O. This would be to impose a duty on the Minister to have printed a specification made by him of the terms and sources of any foreign borrowing by the Corporation.
The power to specify has by its very nature to be kept flexible. The Corporation and the lenders would be in negotiation up to the moment when the terms are settled: final settlement may even be by telephone. The Minister and the Treasury must be able to act speedily without the time-consuming procedural difficulty of the publication of the Order, as the Amendment requires.
What hon. Gentleman are seeking to do would not be achieved by the Amendment. For the purposes of Parliamentary debate there must be the requirement in the Bill for an affirmative or negative Resolution of the House; without that there can be no Parliamentary debate.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman may not have heard of the negative Resolution procedure; he has not been in the House for very long. He might have paid the Opposition the compliment of realising that we had made this subject to the negative and not the affirmative Resolution procedure, which is where his form of words comes in.

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. There is no reference in the Amendment either to negative or affirmative Resolution procedure.

Mr. Ridley: There is.

Mr. Freeson: I had the courtesy to listen to the hon. Gentleman without interrupting. I am seeking to make a valid point, as did the Opposition. The Amendment would require only the pub-

lication of an Order and not debate by the House.
There were complaints from the hon. Members for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffith) that, although the Bill allowed borrowing in foreign currency by the B.S.C., it did not allow borrowing on the home market. The Conservative Government, in 1956, decided that nationalised industries should no longer borrow by stock issues in this country. This was done because such issues, in the view of the then Government, complicated the management of the money market. I do not know how many hon. Gentleman were members or supporters of the Government in 1956, but it ill behoves them now to criticise on this score when they did away with the power which they would now like to establish for the B.S.C.
Several hon. Members, in particular the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), referred to the effect of this power on foreign exchange, credit and the money supply. I will resist the temptation to refer to my notes on this, as I cannot add to the full statement made by my right hon. Friend, which is reported at column 358 of the Committee proceedings of 26th June, 1969. This is a full statement of the position on the basis of consultation with the Treasury.

Mr. Alison: One of the most cogent points put forward by the Minister in Committee was that the difficulty anticipated by some of my hon. Friends would not arise because the transfer of Steel Corporation borrowing abroad would produce a countervailing drop in borrowing from the British Government at home. The hon. Gentleman has not taken in the point that provision is made in subsection 7(2)(a) for the B.S.C. to borrow from people other than the British Government, particularly the banks. If there is a switch from the British private banking sector to borrowing overseas, it will produce different results from that which was suggested by the hon. Gentleman. May we have a full answer?

Mr. Freeson: If I were to give a full answer, it would mean repeating the whole of the answers given on the matter in Committee. I must content myself tonight by saying that in so far as borrowing requirements in B.S.C. are taken by these other means, by foreign banking or partly from the banks, to


some extent borrowing requirements from Government sources will be reduced. The overall requirements of the industry will remain the same. This does not decide the size of its capital investment programme. It decides the overall programme, and if the components vary it does not affect the total.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman has not quite got the point. If the B.S.C. are not relieving the British Government of any of the burden of borrowing, then the inflow of foreign exchange puts a direct and net additional burden on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has to finance the purchase of the foreign exchange by the exchange equalisation account, so that there is a net increase in the burden.

Mr. Freeson: The advice we have received from the Treasury is contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has said. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is wrong.") If I had to choose between the advice received from the Treasury and what the Opposition Front Bench are saying, I would choose the former rather than the latter.

Mr. Paul Dean: The explanation given in Committee was that when a nationalised industry borrows abroad it surrenders foreign currency required to operate the Exchange Equalisation Account. The point we seek to make is that the Exchequer equalisation account operates only through the medium of the Treasury bill. To that extent it does not have a countervailing effect on the Government's total borrowing requirement, because the Government can borrow through other means outside the Treasury bill market. We are concerned with the difficulties of the Treasury bill in the expansion of money supply. This point has not been covered by the hon. Gentleman, nor was it covered in the Treasury brief in Committee.

Mr. Freeson: I do not think I can go further than what was said in Committee and what I have said this evening. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has made any additional point on top of what was dealt with in Committee.
I turn to deal with the final point, the general issue of the desirability of borrowing abroad. There are two main purposes for which the Corporation and its

companies might wish to borrow in foreign currency. The first is that such borrowing might be desirable in the light of specific projects—this matter was touched upon by one or two hon. Members—or some specific investment. Secondly, regardless of any particular projects, the Corporation and the companies may find it desirable to raise money abroad. An obvious reason might be that funds are cheaper.
12.15 a.m.
I was asked what would be the position if a foreign currency were to be revalued. It is impossible to write a matter of this kind into legislation. It must be a matter of judgment for the Corporation and its financial advisers, and consent remains subject to Ministerial and Treasury control, so that a good deal of expertise will be available in deciding on the soundness or otherwise of borrowing in any foreign currency. It is impossible to cater for such a situation in legislation.
The obvious reason why there would be such borrowing would be if funds were cheaper in the currency which the Corporation wanted to borrow. The Government cannot see any reason why the Corporation and the companies should be restricted in borrowing in foreign currency for the first purpose, and nor can we see any reason why there should be any restriction on the second.
My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary announced in the House recently that the Government are prepared to encourage foreign borrowing in appropriate circumstances by offering special arrangements to relieve the industries of the exchange uncertainties associated with such borrowings. It is important to bear in mind that we are not taking powers which will enable us to require or force the Corporation to borrow abroad. Any initiative will come from the Corporation and will be considered by the Government.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would the hon. Gentleman consent to the Corporation borrowing from South Africa, for example? Speaking for myself, I hope that there would be no hesitation in consenting to borrowings from South Africa, but I wonder what the Minister's hon. Friends would say.

Mr. Freeson: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman saves his discussions of the


politics or policies vis-à-vis South Africa for a more appropriate occasion. But when an application is submitted, from whatever source, it will be considered.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend confirm something that he said earlier, because my hon. Friends and I were amazed by it? He suggested that the Amendments which have been dealt with under this heading have been just to dot the i's and cross the t's in terms of Ministerial control of the Corporation, and have nothing to do with Parliamentary accountability.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are always very critical when they suspect that someone has not done his homework. For once, they appear to have slipped up badly with these Amendments. Is my hon. Friend saying that the past two hours of pious indignation about information and Parliamentary accountability has been a lot of claptrap?

Mr. Freeson: In reply to my hon. Friend's mini-speech, all that I can say is that it goes somewhat further. Not only would there be no additional Parliamentary control by reason of the second Amendment, but, taking them together, we should reduce Ministerial control and end up in a far worse position.

Mr. Ridley: The Parliamentary Secretary is the Opposition's best secret weapon. He succeeded in putting his foot in it throughout the Committee stage, and he has done it again tonight. He suggested, first, that the whole debate was out of order, which was a reflection on you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Then he went on to make out that the Amendments meant something which they do not. If he had taken the trouble to study the effect of the three Amendments taken together, he would have found that they do not remove the power of the Minister to control foreign borrowings, but simply give him power to lay Orders before consenting to them.
Again, the hon. Gentleman will find, if he does just a little bit more thorough searching, that the principal Act is riddled with references to the power of the Minister to do things by Order. He will have Section 28 at his finger tips, so I quote from it:
The Minister may by order provide for the termination of liabilities …".

There is no mention whatever of either the negative or the affirmative Resolution procedure in that Section. So, with a little more experience, he will learn that it is quite common in legislation to allow the Minister to have power to do things by Order.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Mr. Eddie Griffiths), who has been a little bumptious tonight, is also a newcomer to our debates and has not, I think, studied the full implications of making Statutory Instruments. The little interruption he made in his hon. Friend's speech was, perhaps, unwise, because it was not right. So I suggest to him, also, that he learns a little more before making such remarks.
The Parliamentary Secretary went on to argue that borrowing abroad was not inflationary of the money supply. My hon. Friends the Members for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) and Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) put him right there. That, if I may say so, was the fourth point on which he was plumb wrong. He was forced back to argue that the Treasury had given him a brief, and that he preferred to believe the Treasury brief rather than my hon. Friends.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he could have been in his right mind when he spoke those words? That any one should ever believe a brief of this Treasury any more after what we have been through, is straining credulity too far. In this case, the hon. Gentleman was wrong again. If he likes to check with the experts on the academic theory of money supply, he will find that my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash was right, and that he and the Treasury were wrong.
The hon. Gentleman tells us that in the appropriate circumstances he will welcome borrowing by the nationalised industries, but he does not tell us what the appropriate circumstances are. If I may say so, he has made his usual sort of reply to a debate, and it is the sort of reply that he does not deserve to get away with. If he has a case to make he must make it. He must not try to find little drafting faults in a group of Amendments, but make the substantive point. In this case, his drafting points were more real than imaginary, but what he failed to do was to answer the substantive point made by my hon.
Friends. He should be ashamed of his performance, and should regard himself as extremely lucky that we intend to let him get away without pressing the Amendment to a Division, as it deserves to be pressed.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 5, line 34, after Minister ', add—
Provided that such borrowings not in sterling may be utilised only against expenditure incurred by the Corporation outside the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
We have had a long debate on the borrowing powers of the nationalised industries, and particularly borrowing from overseas. It is rather difficult to summarise the debate we have had on the Clause so far, but I want to try to bring out one or two aspects and then relate them specifically to the Amendment.
It has been agreed that it is desirable in normal conditions that the nationalised industries should be able to borrow overseas, but we have found that under the credit squeeze and our increasing indebtedness this needs to be looked at. We have discussed the merits and demerits of Ministerial and Parliamentary control, and we have discussed the consequences on the realities we now have to face because of the increase in the national indebtedness. The Amendment would add a proviso to the consent of the Minister which is referred to in the Clause.
I have mentioned that overseas borrowing is desirable, and we have talked about Ministerial control. What I am certain will be the reality we will face is that overseas borrowing will be increasingly difficult. We have already discussed the difference between overseas borrowing and overseas investment. In Committee, I moved two Amendments which related to both aspects of the problem. The question now is how the Corporation should deploy its assets, how many in this country and how many overseas. How can we make more money available to the Corporation? How is it possible to provide increasing funds from overseas without having to go through the paraphernalia of Parliamentary control, Ministerial control and Treasury control and increasing our

foreign indebtedness? [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) is chortling again. I hope that he will listen to me.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Member is going through the same rubbish that he went through on the previous Amendment. His only aim is to do a disservice to the industry.

Mr. Osborn: The hon. Member made a typical attack which makes it impossible to get on with the Bill.

Mr. Mendelson: Do not attack the Corporation.

Mr. Osborn: The hon. Member has completely misunderstood my hon. Friends and me. We are concerned that the Corporation should be successful and provide employment for the people, including those in the Sheffield area in which the hon. Member is interested.

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Member is not.

Mr. Osborn: I must appeal for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member is accusing me of attacking the Steel Corporation.

Mr. Mendelson: Hear, hear.

Mr. Osborn: I am trying to provide the means to help the Corporation when this country is in the most ghastly economic mess of all time, partly due to the nationalisation of steel.

Mr. Mendelson: Nonsense.

Mr. Osborn: If the hon. Member would read what I said in Committee—I could go over the ground again for his benefit—we would make more reasonable progress. It is utterly wrong to impute to my hon. Friends or to me a desire to attack the Corporation. It is at present in a mess, not necessarily of its own making, but as a result of political decisions taken in the last few years.
This Amendment would help to resolve some of the problems which the Corporation faces. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Penistone makes a series of chortles and attacks. Now the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) wishes to interrupt. Perhaps he will back me up, for he was a member of the Committee.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) makes me go to sleep. Does he


say that the steel industry is in a mess because of nationalisation? Is it not true that for years the industry has been behind competitors abroad? The hon. Member must be aware that the production by a man in the British industry is 90 tons a year while in Germany it is 120 tons and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. Interruptions must be brief.

Mr. Wainwright: I was finishing, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In America, it is 180 tons and in Japan 200 tons. Is that due to nationalisation or private enterprise?

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Osborn: We have had a diversion. We have now been on Report for four and a half hours. Obviously, hon. Members are a little weary.
I raised in Committee the question of what amount of overseas assets we can offset against borrowing from overseas. The annual report gives a figure of slightly less than £20 million. The Minister did not answer the question, because he pointed out that the Corporation have very few overseas assets, that they belonged to the companies. Tonight, we are interested to learn the real value at current prices of the assets of the Corporation when the implications of the Bill have materialised and the assets have been transferred to the Corporation.
Can we offset the value of those assets against sums borrowed overseas so that we do not have to go through the paraphernalia of having Parliamentary and other types of control? The purpose of the Amendment is to suggest that we should look at the Corporation's future expansion. In due time it will be necessary to weigh the merits of expanding home steel melting, steel rolling, blast furnaces, the deeper ports to take the larger cargo ships, as against expanding overseas.
The Clyde has been mentioned as a possible expansion point at home. Then there are South Wales and the North-East Coast. Does the Minister want to say anything about the merits of expansion in this country against the possibility of expanding overseas? This is something which he and Lord Melchett will have to consider in detail. If ex-

pansion overseas is proved to be economically desirable for the reasons which we advanced in Committee, would it not be better to use funds from overseas for that expansion?
Mr. Speaker, before you arrived I apologised to the House for the diversion into which I was drawn. The Amendment, which was meant to be constructive and which I hope that the Minister will consider sympathetically following our discussion in Committee, has led to the suggestion that I am attacking the Corporation. The Corporation has much to consider in the future and will obviously have to consider deploying assets overseas. That Amendment would be a useful Amendment to the Corporation.

Sir J. Eden: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) is well known for his interest in and knowledge of the steel industry. He was right not to be led astray by the thoroughly unpleasant, typically demagogic, vulgar, wholly unwarranted, and personally abusive intervention of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson).

Mr. John Mendelson: I said—I put it on record, and I repeat—that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) and all Tory speakers this evening have been vilifying the Corporation by saying that it will go around Europe—

Sir J. Eden: rose

Mr. Mendelson: —trying to pick up a few D-marks and francs. They are doing a disservice to the Corporation—

Sir J. Eden: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. When an hon. Gentleman allows another hon. Gentleman to intervene, he must allow him to complete his intervention.

Mr. Mendelson: I was saying, and I am putting it on record, that the hon. Member for Hallam and the other Tory Members who have spoken have been vilifying the Corporation by saying that under the procedure proposed in the Bill it will go around Europe trying to pick up a few dirty D-marks in a few capitals, and he was doing a disservice to the Corporation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief.

Sir J. Eden: Now, Mr. Speaker, you have had an opportunity of hearing what an unpleasant fellow the hon. Member for Penistone is. I am sure that you now recognise how great was the temptation put upon my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No hon. Member must ever pray Mr. Speaker in aid.

Sir J. Eden: All of us who have worked on Standing Committees with my hon. Friend know the extent to which he supports the industry and the backing which he has given to the activities of British steel, whether in the public or the private sector. As he said, the purpose of this Amendment is to further that end.
The Amendment is very much in line with observations made in the Corporation's own report, "Finance for Steel", in the section on overseas development on page 12. I shall quote one sentence. After dealing with all the various ways in which it might seek to invest money abroad, the Corporation said:
If the Corporation is empowered to borrow abroad, the financing of ventures of this nature would be facilitated.
My hon. Friend seeks to take it one stage further by requiring that the powers of the Corporation to borrow abroad in money other than sterling should be exercised only against expenditure incurred by the Corporation overseas. The Corporation will probably incur considerable expenditure overseas. This is not the moment to go into the various ways in which it will wish to develop overseas, but the Minister knows of many of the plans which it has for overseas development. The Amendment is worthy of full consideration and sympathetic support.

Mr. Mason: On the previous Amendment, we had a debate lasting more than two hours on much the same matter, and I shall not weary the House by going through the problems of indebtedness, the flow of money supply and the rest. What the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) and his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) say is that it is all right for the British Steel Corporation to borrow abroad, but it must be spent abroad.
The Corporation may want to borrow to assist it to strengthen its position over-

seas. The Corporation is an international industrial organization, not like the domestic nationalised industries of gas and electricity. Because of the many subsidiaries related to the companies which it has taken over, after the companies are absorbed and the Corporation is entirely responsible, the assets of the companies abroad will be in its hands. As hon. Members know, they are worth about £20 million.
There are several companies abroad, and it may be necessary for the Corporation to borrow abroad with a view to helping and strengthening those subsidiaries. It may wish to borrow abroad to protect the long-term supplies of ore. Again, it would be borrowing abroad and spending abroad. It may be necessary for the Corporation to borrow abroad in establishing a consortium with overseas firms. The Corporation is an international industry in international competition.
Unlike other nationalised industries which may have power to borrow abroad, it is likely that the Corporation may use more of its overseas borrowings for overseas purposes.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Would the Minister recognise that borrowing abroad for overseas investments need not involve the Treasury in having to supply guarantees, as is the case for borrowing abroad at present, and it is a good way to short-circuit the difficulties which would normally result from borrowing abroad for capital expenditure at home, thus increasing our international indebtedness? Would the right hon. Gentleman touch on that aspect?

Mr. Mason: I gather that it is far better that there should be the Treasury guarantee.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the real value of the Corporation's assets. He knows what is entered in the book and what the companies' total assets are which are going to the Corporation. But I do not think we can go much further. The Corporation has shown the value in its accounts in the usual accounting form. We have no better figure.
I can appreciate fully the purport of the Amendment: if there is to be borrowing by the Corporation abroad, it should be spent abroad. I should have thought that in many instances when it


borrowed abroad it would need that money for purposes abroad. I should not like to apply this restraint on the Corporation when it may want to borrow abroad. I should not like to stop it using that facility for home purposes as well.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: The Minister has dealt with the Amendment with sympathy. I hope that he will consider some of the points which I raised. It is not our wish to press the Amendment at this hour. We put it forward in order to get some appreciation of the Minister's intentions. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be read the Third time this day.

NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRI BUTIONS (MISS M. NEVILLE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Miller.]

12.43 a.m.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I never realised when I first raised this case with the Ministry that I should have to take it as far as I have to take it now.
Miss Margaret Neville came to this country from Eire in 1935. She was desirous of becoming a nurse. She went to St. Thomas's Hospital, in London, and trained and qualified for that profession. She was a very patriotic member of the community. When war was declared, she felt it her duty to join up to support this country. On 6th September. 1939, she joined the Royal Navy Nursing Service, and she served in several war hospitals in the United Kingdom, carrying out her duties with efficiency and courage on behalf of this country.
In 1942, Miss Neville was sent abroad and served in a hospital in Alexandria, Egypt. She stayed there for two years, under great stress, as one would expect of anyone serving in the Royal Navy Nursing Service at that time. On her return to the United Kingdom, in 1944, she was sent to the Royal Navy Hospital in Londonderry, and she was discharged in February, 1946. In December, 1946, she went back to Eire, to nurse her sick parents. They were rather elderly and

needed someone to look after them. Her mother was a registered blind person.
While Miss Neville was there looking after her parents she contracted lung disease and also suffered from anaemia. These illnesses could have been caused, and probably must have been caused, by her war service. But she did not trouble to claim benefits while she was living in Eire.
In 1957, Miss Neville returned to this country, bringing her mother with her. Unfortunately, her father had died. By this time she had fully recovered. Immediately on coming here she began work at the surgery of a Dr. Robinson, at Wath-upon-Dearne, in my constituency. Her brother, who is a doctor, was a member of the group.
Miss Neville's knowledge of the National Insurance Act was very limited. It could be said that she knew nothing about paying contributions and receiving benefits. The only thing she realised about paying contributions was that some money must have been deducted from her weekly or monthly salary as she was working as a nurse and in the doctor's surgery. She was so ignorant about what should be done in the matter of this kind that it was not until she received the advice of her employer, Dr. Robinson, that she went to the Barnsley office of the Ministry of National Insurance. She went twice, and on her second visit she was asked by the clerk if she was the Miss Neville who had been trained as a nurse at St. Thomas's Hospital. London, and had later served in the Royal Navy.
Of course, her answer was "Yes", but the clerk never informed her that she had a gap in her contributions and that she was entitled to pay the arrears. It was obvious that the office had obtained details of her career, but it failed in its duty to notify her about paying the arrears of contributions. Why did not the clerk tell her? Why did not the office pass on the information? Was it because they were failing in their duty? Or were they really taking it for granted that Miss Neville knew about the payment of arrears being allowed?
Surely this shows that it is a fallacy for the Ministry to make a statement that wherever possible it advised people on these matters. During the whole of the period in which I have discussed this matter with it, the Ministry has not yet


proved to me that it has any system for passing information to people who have arrears of contributions and notifying them that they have six years in which to pay them.
My hon. Friend knows that in the 1940s and 1950s and today nurses were not and are not interested in what benefits are paid out in national insurance and social security, but in their work, to which they are totally dedicated. Miss Neville is of that kind. She is a dedicated nurse. She never questioned whether she should support the nation when war was declared. She volunteered to serve the country, of which she had been a resident for four years. One must not forget, of course, that when she joined up millions of other people did at the same time.
I failed to get satisfaction from the Ministry on this case. My hon. Friend was sympathetic and made arrangements for me to meet representatives of the Ministry, for which I was grateful. But the hand of bureaucracy could not be moved and although I pleaded with them on behalf of Miss Neville I failed to move them. They would not agree that the arrears could be paid.
I then went to the Parliamentary Commissioner and thought that I had moved things in getting that far. But there is a statement in his report which is disturbing. He says that some arrears had been paid. Obviously, the record must have been supplied to him by the Ministry, but that information was never given to me when I met the representatives of the Ministry and at no time has my hon. Friend given it to me.
Miss Neville refutes the statement that she was ever asked to pay arrears, or that she paid. She says that had she known she could pay any arrears, she would have done so. When did she arrive at the knowledge that she could pay arrears? She happened to be in York at the home of a niece when discussion arose about the payment of arrears. The niece said that Ministry officials had visited her home to inform her that she could pay the arrears which she owed for one year. That was in 1967 and shortly afterwards the case came to me.
So, for all this length of time, the Ministry failed to notify my constituent

that such arrears could be paid. I want to know whether information was given to the Parliamentary Commissioner which was not given to me—I believe that it must have been—because if it was given to him, it should have been given to me during the discussions which took place.
Today, I put a Question on this issue:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, if he will give details of the time limits under his regulations within which arrears of contributions, due to a person being out of work for any length of time, must be paid before the weekly amount of pension will be of a lesser rate; and if he will make a statement.
In his Answer, my hon. Friend said:
In certain circumstances contributions paid after these dates may be treated as having been paid on the due date, if the failure to pay at the proper time was due to ignorance or error on the part of the insured person which was not due to any failure on his part to exercise due care and diligence. These time limits are necessary to protect the National Insurance Fund and we have no flans to vary them.
This was ignorance on the part of my constituent. She could easily have afforded to pay the arrears at any time on her return to this country.
I have little sympathy with those who fail to pay when they have the opportunity to pay and know that they have to do so, although we must not forget that even some of those may be on low wages and not able to afford the extra required. But when a person is not made aware of the position and the Ministry has no clear method for giving the information, she must be allowed to pay arrears.
I have been shocked by the attitude of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this issue. I have received many letters of complaint about the Ministry's attitude. The Ministry issues only one pamphlet to notify people that they may pay arrears. Presumably, it is a reprint, but the pamphlet is dated January, 1969—it is pamphlet N.I. 38. Paragraph 8 deals with time limits for payments of contributions.
How many contributors go to the National Insurance office—the Social Security Office—it has changed its name many times and is now the Ministry of Health and Social Services office—to ask about the rules and regulations? It all depends on the clerks at the desk. When my constituent went to the Barnsley office


in 1957 to obtain her new insurance card, the clerks did not give her the necessary information. If they had done so, she would have paid off the arrears. It now seems that she will be penalised because someone at the Barnsley office did not do his duty. The Ministry does not put out sufficient publicity to ensure that people qualify for their pensions by paying off arrears within six years of their being due.
I am shocked and disgusted by this case. Here is a young woman who came from Ireland and who trained to be a nurse in this country. Within four years of arriving here she joined up. Her illness must have been due to her service abroad. She did not trouble to claim sickness benefits, and no one from the Ministry even asked her to supply evidence of her sickness. She was then told that it was her fault and that she should have known that she could pay her arrears and claim benefits. If I had got on to this case earlier, this constituent might have been able to claim a pension because of her sickness, which must have been contributed to by war service.
I ask my hon. Friend to consider this case again, even at this late stage, and grant Miss Neville permission to pay her arrears of contribution.

1.1 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): I have listened carefully to everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) and I fully appreciate the care and attention to detail with which he has presented the case seeking a favourable outcome for his constituent, Miss Neville. I also pay tribute to his diligence on behalf of his constituent. I know from experience that he has pursued every avenue open to him on this case.
However, despite everything that he has said tonight about my Department, I can assure him that everyone who has handled this case in my Department has for his or her part begun by wanting to help Miss Neville, particularly in view of her war service in the Queen Alexandra Royal Naval Nursing Service and the circumstances in which she had to abandon her nursing in England to go back home to the Irish Republic to look

after her parents. We have all tried to bend the rules in her favour, but we have been forced to admit that we can do nothing to help her.
Let me briefly trace the course of events and explain why it is we reached this conclusion. When the new scheme of national insurance began in 1948, Miss Neville was at home in the Irish Republic and we heard nothing from her until November 1959, when she registered for the first time under the scheme of national insurance. Now, that was more than 11 years after the start of the scheme. If she had written to us in 1948, we could have told her that she had the right to pay voluntary contributions from the Irish Republic, even if she intended to spend the rest of her life in that country, and we could also have told her that later on she would have the right to draw her retirement pension there. At that time, in 1948, we were sending out many thousands of letters and leaflets all over the world in reply to questions about the new scheme. But Miss Neville did not write to us, so we could not tell her about her position.
When she did come to our Barnsley local office, in 1959, it was too late for her to pay arrears for the whole of the 11 years she had missed. But she could still have paid arrears for the last six contribution years. In fact, she did not offer to pay arrears until 1967. It was then too late. The six years' time limit had expired. It is true that there is power to extend that time limit, but my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Social Security, now Paymaster-General, could find no ground for extending it, although we searched the papers diligently when my hon. Friend brought the case to our notice.
We discussed the case at great length, but, in the end, we felt bound to tell my hon. Friend that nothing could be done. He then submitted Miss Neville's complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner, and the Commissioner, after making a thorough investigation of the case, reported that the gap in Miss Neville's record of contributions could not be attributed to maladministration by our Ministry.
Our records do not tell us everything that was said when Miss Neville visited our Barnsley local office in 1959, but they do show that the local office dealt


intelligently and sympathetically with her case. It took the trouble to have a search made in the records of the old scheme of contributory pensions so as to link up her insurance under that scheme with her record under the new scheme of national insurance. Here, I should like to clear up a point on which there has been some doubt. Miss Neville still had the impression, even in 1967, that this linking of insurance had reduced her pension rights. Quite the contrary. Actually, it helped her. It will enable her, if she maintains a good record of contributions till she reaches 60. to have a yearly average of 37 contributions rather than a yearly average of 32.
That aside, I think that the main point made by my hon. Friend is that our Barnsley local office failed to tell Miss Neville about the gap in her record of contributions and about her right to pay arrears of contributions for at least part of the time she had spent in the Irish Republic. On this, I should say that our local offices are instructed to warn insured persons about the effects of any gap in their record of contributions and to tell them about their rights to pay arrears of voluntary contributions for any time they have been abroad.
In Miss Neville's case, the Barnsley local office, when she went there in 1959, may not have stressed these points with sufficient vigour, because at that time—and I must make this plain—so far from being willing to pay voluntary contributions for the years she had spent in the Irish Republic, she was unable or unwilling to pay all the contributions she was liable to pay for the time between her return to England in 1957 or 1958 and her first visit to the Barnsley local office in November, 1959.
It is important, when looking at Miss Neville's case, to appreciate that it is not unique. Every year about 200,000 people go abroad for a substantial period of years rather than months, and the majority of these pay no voluntary contributions for the time they are abroad.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: My hon. Friend keeps mentioning November, 1959. Miss Neville came back to this country in 1957. As soon as her employer advised her to go to the Barnsley local office she went. Will my hon. Friend check the point about its being December or

November, 1959—because this differs from what Miss Neville has told me?

Mr. Pentland: I understand my hon. Friend's point of view. I said that Miss Neville returned to England in 1957 or 1958, but according to my information, and the information passed to us from the Barnsley local office, her first visit to that office was made in November, 1959.
As I was saying, every year about 200,000 people go abroad for a substantial period of years rather than months, and the majority of these pay no voluntary contributions for the time they are abroad. If we allowed them to wait till they were approaching pension age, many of them would be glad to pay arrears of contributions and thus qualify for pensions at the full rate. We are already paying 110,000 retirement pensions abroad, but the number would be much greater if we had no time limit for the payment of voluntary contributions. We think that a time limit of six years is generous enough. Anything more than this would be unfair to the insured people who remain in this country, paying their contributions regularly every week and financing the national insurance scheme not only as contributors but also as taxpayers. For this reason, we feel bound to maintain the time limit of six years, and we must apply this time limit in an orderly way, for we are dealing with thousands of cases.
Bearing in mind that we have such a time limit it is, of course, quite fair to ask what we do to make certain people know where they stand. This is one of the issues raised by my hon. Friend. Well, I can tell him we do a great deal. Every year, for example, we send out just over 3 million notices telling people about gaps in their record of contributions; and our local offices hand out many thousands of leaflets about the position of insured people who are abroad and about the time limits for paying arrears of contributions. But we cannot tell everyone everything that is relevant to his national insurance position. We must rely on the individual to take an interest in his national insurance and to make inquiries if he is in doubt. Our local offices are always ready to help.
There are many hundreds of thousands of insured persons who have gaps in


their records of contributions, because they have been abroad for substantial periods. Some of these, like Miss Neville, have had the opportunity of discussing their problems with our local offices. Others have never visited a local office in their lives and have never written to us from abroad.
I believe that most of these people, whether they are still abroad or have now come back to this country, could say honestly, when they are approaching pension age that, as far as they can remember, no one ever told them about the gaps in their contribution records or about their right to pay voluntary contributions. The Government are satisfied that it would be unfair to the general body of insured persons and taxpayers in this country if we allowed these

people who have been abroad to gain an advantage by reason of their failure to ask us for information and advice.
I have been talking in general terms about the situation. I end by saying once again that I am sorry we have been unable to help Miss Neville. I know full well that my hon. Friend is deeply concerned about her case. As I have said, we all started with the aim of seeing what we could do, but, after the most careful review of all the circumstances, we have become convinced that her case has been properly and fairly handled in accordance with the rules which apply to such cases.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past One o'clock.